Federer 8-17 against Nadalovic at slams !!

[sheq]

Firstly, i am a federer fan and wanted him to win the title so much. However, i dont feel depressed because i give up on federer since many years. I comprehended that he is mentally too weak against favorites, against no1 ranking player. You can check the bets, you can check the scores, and you will see that roger is too good when he is upper hand, and he is against everyone except Nadal and Djokovic. There is too many words to say, but Federer 8-17 against Nadalovic at slams !! Can you believe this statistic ? During his proffesionel career, Federer has had two main and only rivals, and he has % 32 win/loss ratio at the biggest stage. I dont care what roger is doing or had done against Murray, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero etc. These guys has 1.6 slams avarage, nadalovic has 12 slams avarage !!

To summarize, i appreciate what roger is doing especially at this age, he loves the sport more than anyone in history. His game is the most beautiful one, he accomplished so much during his career. However, we have to rely on math and eyes, he cant be considered as the GOAT, he simply can not, surely one of the greates, but GOAT. Noone can be GOAT with %32 win/loss ratio against his two main rival during a 10 years span. BTW he is %41 win/loss ratio against these two, and these statistic is gonna be even worse by the time he retires.

 

[Gary Duane]

There is too many words to say, but Federer 8-17 against Nadalovic at slams !!

Pretend that Fed quit playing tennis at age 26, as Borg did, then check those same stats. Up to 2007 Fed lost only to Nadal, at the FO.

In 2008, it started to change.

Even in 2009, Fed won two slams.

If you go back and check the records of players who played into their 30s, the win/loss record looks bad only because they played so long.

If Novak and Nadal are still playing slams at age 34 it won't look so good for them either.

 

[sheq]

Pretend that Fed quit playing tennis at age 26, as Borg did, then check those same stats. Up to 2007 Fed lost only to Nadal, at the FO.

In 2008, it started to change.

Even in 2009, Fed won two slams.

If you go back and check the records of players who played into their 30s, the win/loss record looks bad only because they played so long.

If Novak and Nadal are still playing slams at age 34 it won't look so good for them either.

During his prime years 2004-2008 he has 5-6 win/loss record, still negative. Remeber these years are his best, and Nole is teenager, plus Nadal had just been no1 player by the end of the 2008

 

[ForumMember]

If I am not wrong Federer won his last GS Final against Nadalovic was USO 2007, against Djokovic when Djokovic was barely in his 20s.

 

[Strobe Lights]

If Fed retired after 2010 AO with 16 Majors at 28, it would be 2-6 against Nadal (2-2 off clay) and 4-1 against Novak. So the only blemish really would've been 0-4 against Rafa at RG who even prime Novak couldn't beat (2012, 2013 and 2014) until Nadal's level was way down this year.

So using this to criticise Federer is basically criticising him for continuing to go deep in Majors beyond his prime.

 

[Gary Duane]

During his prime years 2004-2008 he has 5-6 win/loss record, still negative. Remeber these years are his best, and Nole is teenager, plus Nadal had just been no1 player by the end of the 2008

5-6 win/loss in slams? Or against Nadal?

And on what surface?

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Replace "every single daily event" with "every single match and head-to-head".

 

[SQA333]

Doesn't really matter. True fans of the Eagle appreciate the way he plays the game, not his results. Makes no difference whether he's *the* GOAT or just one of the GOATs.

 

[GabeT]

He's the GOAT, not God.

 

[robin7]

Another FO + Olympic Gold will establish Roger as the GOAT!

 

[mule250]

Replace "every single daily event" with "every single match and head-to-head".

The whole system is breaking down!

 

[Sentinel]

If I am not wrong Federer won his last GS Final against Nadalovic was USO 2007, against Djokovic when Djokovic was barely in his 20s.

He beat Djokovic in 2012 at WO in the semi. Djokovic was 25 then. Why go back all the way back to 2007. Why only select finals. That necessitates that Nadalovic be on the other side of the draw and make it to the final, which is not in Federer's hands.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Yeah true he should have quit like Borg did because the guys in the next generation were rising up.

So just like the poster said, things started this way after Federer contracted mono in 2008 so just assume that ended his career. At least with Djokovic it's only a two match difference when he's way past his prime.

 

[ultradr]

Age arguement is not that strong here. 5-6 year difference is not quite big.

All time greats usually successfully survives 5-6 year younger generations until 10+ younger generations take over.

Federer accumulated large number of slams in relatively shorter period time compared to all time greats like Laver, Gonzalez and Sampras.

 

[Fedfan34]

Pretend that Fed quit playing tennis at age 26, as Borg did, then check those same stats. Up to 2007 Fed lost only to Nadal, at the FO.

In 2008, it started to change.

Even in 2009, Fed won two slams.

If you go back and check the records of players who played into their 30s, the win/loss record looks bad only because they played so long.

If Novak and Nadal are still playing slams at age 34 it won't look so good for them either.

So age 26 is now the decline age?

 

[ultradr]

Federer is the most successful player in history.

That doesn't mean he is GOAT.
I don't think he is even open era GOAT.
maybe young viewers are ignorant of history.

You gonna ignore panch gonzalez since he has only 1 slam? ignore Laver since he has only
11 slams ? You gonna ignore players in 70s-90s like Sampras with top count of 14?

all time great players never got pushed over by 5-6 year younger generations.
they got pushed out by 10-20 year younger generations !

 

[RF20Lennon]

Federer is the most successful player in history.

That doesn't mean he is GOAT.
I don't think he is even open era GOAT.
maybe young viewers are ignorant of history.

all time great players never got pushed over by 5-6 year younger generations.
they got pushed out by 10-20 year younger generations !

Tennis is about how much you win not whom you beat.

In 50 years no one will care about who Federer beat to win what. The only thing that remains in history are titles, records, and stats which Federer has better than any other player and hence he is the GOAT.

Not to mention most sports journalists, commentators and fans agree he is the GOAT.

 

[Bud]

Week ara

 

[Gary Duane]

If I am not wrong Federer won his last GS Final against Nadalovic was USO 2007, against Djokovic when Djokovic was barely in his 20s.

Thinking...

Novak was not #1 until around 2011, I believe, so they did not usually meet then in finals. Fed took out Novak at the USO in a SF in 2009. In 2010 it was the reverse. Since that time Novak has been Fed's other kryptonite at slams. The real difference happened at the beginning of 2010, after Fed's last AO.

 

[Novak And The Net.]

Cool. Lets put faker and Nadal together, to make a stat seem even more worse than it is! This is what happens when only 36 of 42 meetings happen after Federer's peak. Nadal has generally always had an edge over Federer so that's fine.

 

[Chanwan]

During his prime years 2004-2008 he has 5-6 win/loss record, still negative. Remeber these years are his best, and Nole is teenager, plus Nadal had just been no1 player by the end of the 2008

4 of those were to the clay goat on clay – not to forget it's also a player he has a bad matchup against
AO 2008 he had mono. He didn't lose to Novak at a slam again until US Open 2010
Anything else 'Fedfan'?

 

[Rosstour]

Age arguement is not that strong here. 5-6 year difference is not quite big.

All time greats usually successfully survives 5-6 year younger generations until 10+ younger generations take over.

Federer accumulated large number of slams in relatively shorter period time compared to all time greats like Laver, Gonzalez and Sampras.

5-6 years is a huge difference.

At Djoker's current age, Fed was in all 4 GS Finals as well.

 

[Enga]

8 wins vs 2 all time greats counting only the slams is pretty good. Who says you should win them all?

The day tennis sees a man who wins every match his entire career is the day tennis has finally been taken over by cyborgs.

 

[beast of mallorca]

Firstly, i am a federer fan and wanted him to win the title so much. However, i dont feel depressed because i give up on federer since many years. I comprehended that he is mentally too weak against favorites, against no1 ranking player. You can check the bets, you can check the scores, and you will see that roger is too good when he is upper hand, and he is against everyone except Nadal and Djokovic. There is too many words to say, but Federer 8-17 against Nadalovic at slams !! Can you believe this statistic ? During his proffesionel career, Federer has had two main and only rivals, and he has % 32 win/loss ratio at the biggest stage. I dont care what roger is doing or had done against Murray, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero etc. These guys has 1.6 slams avarage, nadalovic has 12 slams avarage !!

To summarize, i appreciate what roger is doing especially at this age, he loves the sport more than anyone in history. His game is the most beautiful one, he accomplished so much during his career. However, we have to rely on math and eyes, he cant be considered as the GOAT, he simply can not, surely one of the greates, but GOAT. Noone can be GOAT with %32 win/loss ratio against his two main rival during a 10 years span. BTW he is %41 win/loss ratio against these two, and these statistic is gonna be even worse by the time he retires.

Does that make Feddy a mental midget compared to the 2 ? .........

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Does that make Feddy a mental midget compared to the 2 ? .........

 

[AngryBirds]

8 wins vs 2 all time greats counting only the slams is pretty good. Who says you should win them all?

The day tennis sees a man who wins every match his entire career is the day tennis has finally been taken over by cyborgs.

Yeah, but he lost much more than he won. GOAT certainly can't be that bad.

 

[70後]

Firstly, i am a federer fan and wanted him to win the title so much. However, i dont feel depressed because i give up on federer since many years. I comprehended that he is mentally too weak against favorites, against no1 ranking player. You can check the bets, you can check the scores, and you will see that roger is too good when he is upper hand, and he is against everyone except Nadal and Djokovic. There is too many words to say, but Federer 8-17 against Nadalovic at slams !! Can you believe this statistic ? During his proffesionel career, Federer has had two main and only rivals, and he has % 32 win/loss ratio at the biggest stage. I dont care what roger is doing or had done against Murray, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero etc. These guys has 1.6 slams avarage, nadalovic has 12 slams avarage !!

To summarize, i appreciate what roger is doing especially at this age, he loves the sport more than anyone in history. His game is the most beautiful one, he accomplished so much during his career. However, we have to rely on math and eyes, he cant be considered as the GOAT, he simply can not, surely one of the greates, but GOAT. Noone can be GOAT with %32 win/loss ratio against his two main rival during a 10 years span. BTW he is %41 win/loss ratio against these two, and these statistic is gonna be even worse by the time he retires.

In that case, we should try doing the same over all and slam stat with say Lendl vs Edberg/Becker since he is also about 6 years older than those guys and possibly in the same position that Fed is in relation to Nadal/Djokovic.

 

[3fees]

dont worry the number will get more skewed if Federer plays Djokovic in any more finals.

Cheers
3fees

 

[abmk]

Age arguement is not that strong here. 5-6 year difference is not quite big.

All time greats usually successfully survives 5-6 year younger generations until 10+ younger generations take over.

Federer accumulated large number of slams in relatively shorter period time compared to all time greats like Laver, Gonzalez and Sampras.

yes, of course 5-6 year difference is not that big ...:roll

95 sampras and as well as 2001 sampras were equivalent. Just that he kept geting beaten by the younger generation - federer in 5 and then breadsticked twice by hewitt etc. etc.

here is the reality to get you out of your delusions :

90 : sampras, 1 slam
------

93 : sampras 2 slams, 2003 : federer 1 slam
94 : sampras 2 slams, 2004 : federer 3 slams
95 : sampras 2 slams, 2005 : federer 2 slams
96 : sampras 1 slam, 2006 :federer 3 slams
97 : sampras 2 slams, 2007 :federer 3 slams
98 : sampras 1 slam, 2008 : federer 1 slam
99 : sampras 1 slam, 2009 :federer 2 slams
2000 : sampras 1 slam, 2010 : federer 1 slam
2002 : sampras 1 slam, 2012: federer 1 slam

------

2014 : federer 1 slam final
2015 : federer 2 slam finals

similar trajectory, only federer was quite clearly better once he hit his prime

 

[abmk]

Federer is the most successful player in history.

That doesn't mean he is GOAT.
I don't think he is even open era GOAT.
maybe young viewers are ignorant of history.

You gonna ignore panch gonzalez since he has only 1 slam? ignore Laver since he has only
11 slams ? You gonna ignore players in 70s-90s like Sampras with top count of 14?

all time great players never got pushed over by 5-6 year younger generations.
they got pushed out by 10-20 year younger generations !

LOL @ comparing the kafelnikov-kuerten-norman generation to the nadal-djokovic-murray one .. are you kidding me ?

10-20 year old generations ? 20 ?

lets see that means a player at 32-33 year old gets pushed over by players 13-14 years old , good to know !

Argue all what you want for Laver/Gonzales , but Sampras' case with respect to being better than federer got closed a LONG time ago, wimbledon 2009 to be honest and wimbledon 2012 if still want to argue for longevity .......

and don't get insane arguments like 20 year old younger generations taking over or trying to compare the kafelnikov-kuerten-norman generation to the nadal-djokovic-murray one

 

[FedTheMan]

LOL @ comparing the kafelnikov-kuerten-norman generation to the nadal-djokovic-murray one .. are you kidding me ?

• Dude, forget about Ultradr. He hates Roger and says that Fed can't volley and that Nadal is a way better volleyer and more natural at the net as if that is a fact. LOL.

• He also was stating that Fed's form in 2014 was due to Nadal and Murray's injuries. This was disproved with Fed playing better in 2015 as well with a healthy Murray throughout the season and still made 2 GS finals!!!

• Then he stated that as Fed ages, his best chances will come at RG or AO as he is a good slow court player but overrated on fast courts. LOL. This was also disproved with Fed making 3 W finals and 1 USO final since 2011.

• That guy knows nothing about Roger.

 

[GabeT]

Why this obsessive, never ending need to show that Player X is clearly above Player Y? It's like a disease.

Federer, Nadal, Nole, these are some of the greatest players in history. Who in the world knows how they would have fared if they had been born at different times?

 

[Murrayfan31]

Nadal and Djokovic are both better than Federer. Stats don't lie. Djokovic is becoming the GOAT. Nadal no longer can keep up.

 

[mavsman149]

Incredible that all 4 ended in aces. You have to think if Nadal would have even reached Fed, Fed would've won. Hence why comparing H2H with one player at a tournament with a draw of 128 doesn't make much sense.

 

[mavsman149]

Nadal and Djokovic are both better than Federer. Stats don't lie. Djokovic is becoming the GOAT. Nadal no longer can keep up.

You're right stats don't lie, Federer is pretty far ahead of both Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Incredible that all 4 ended in aces. You have to think if Nadal would have even reached Fed, Fed would've won. Hence why comparing H2H with one player at a tournament with a draw of 128 doesn't make much sense.

Hmm, no.

 

[mavsman149]

Hmm, no.

Darcis, Rosol, Kyrgios and Brown>>Federer?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Darcis, Rosol, Kyrgios and Brown>>Federer?

Ever heard of a matchup? If Nadal is in week 2 and playing Federer, he has the advantage.

 

[mavsman149]

Ever heard of a matchup? If Nadal is in week 2 and playing Federer, he has the advantage.

I understand matchups and I understand that Nadal is 1-2 on grass against Federer. For sure Nadal has dominated their matchups but Federer still does well on grass.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I understand matchups and I understand that Nadal is 1-2 on grass against Federer. For sure Nadal has dominated their matchups but Federer still does well on grass.

A Fed win isn't impossible, but if I had to bet, it would be on Nadal.

 

[mavsman149]

A Fed win isn't impossible, but if I had to bet, it would be on Nadal.

For sure Nadal matches up well with Federer obviously, but Federer on his best surface, especially in years where Nadal couldn't beat Darcis, Brown, Rosol and Kyrgios, my money would be on Federer.

 

[RF20Lennon]

A Fed win isn't impossible, but if I had to bet, it would be on Nadal.

For sure Nadal matches up well with Federer obviously, but Federer on his best surface, especially in years where Nadal couldn't beat Darcis, Brown, Rosol and Kyrgios, my money would be on Federer.

First week - Federer. The grass is firm and slippery and the ball is very low and the court is quick.
Second week - It would start favoring Nadal.

 

[MichaelNadal]

For sure Nadal matches up well with Federer obviously, but Federer on his best surface, especially in years where Nadal couldn't beat Darcis, Brown, Rosol and Kyrgios, my money would be on Federer.

It doesn't matter if Nadal loses to Santa Claus, if he gets to Federer, advantage Nadal. The AO2012 and 2014 should show you that.

 

[mavsman149]

It doesn't matter if Nadal loses to Santa Claus, if he gets to Federer, advantage Nadal. The AO2012 and 2014 should show you that.

He's definitely in his head but I think grass is different. This year at least with Nadal playing so poorly I think had they played at Wimbledon that would have been a gimme.

 

[sportsfan1]

[Rafa's wimby losses gif]

Nice gif. Quite a coincidence that all 4 of Rafa's losses at Wimby recently finished with an ace on the last point.