Federer > Djokovic > Nadal - average # of top 10 opponents faced in slams in which they made final

Amritia

Hall of Fame
how is cherrypicked when doesn't do anything to particularly favour any player?
just because it punctured your nonsense view about so called weak era, doesn't mean it is flawed.
It is flawed.

You are trying to rebut an argument that the quality of players around Fed's age range by providing stats on the rankings of players Federer beat. But the whole point is that players like Ljubicic were highly ranked despite not being world class. There's no logic to your argument.
 

CYGS

Legend
Baby Nadal - the matchup, Baby Murray- Fed disinterested, not motivated enough.. You see everything can be explained in the Fed cult la la land. 8-B
You can’t only be old to one person and not old to the others. Age excuse always comes up when losing to Djokovic but never seems to matter when winning against Nadal and Murray in the last decade. Hypocrisy!
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
It is flawed.

You are trying to rebut an argument that the quality of players around Fed's age range by providing stats on the rankings of players Federer beat. But the whole point is that players like Ljubicic were highly ranked despite not being world class. There's no logic to your argument.
already addressed.

LMAO. Lets not forget old Ljubicic beat Nadal, Djokovic and Roddick to win Indian Wells in 2010.
lets not forget Anderson made 2 slam finals. Lets not forget Nadal did not face a single top 25 player in USO 2017.
Lets not forget #5 Nadal in 2015 did not make a semi and the 2 slam QFs he played, he got obliterated.
Lets not forget how few top 10nners nadal faced in 2010.
Ljubicic got to #3 for a little while in 06, which I already said was a relatively weak year (like 10,15)
You bringing in 1 player in Ljubicic is an actually very ****ty way of arguing.

look -> a specimen of the haplessly clueless/full of sh*t people I was referring to.

04 had fed, agassi, hewitt, roddick, safin, nalbandian, moya, coria etc.
05 had fed, nadal, hewitt, roddick, agassi, safin, nalby etc.
07 had fed, nadal, djokovic, roddick, davy, nalby etc.

who are those cr*p players in top 10?

only 06 was relatively weak and comparable to 10&15.

Fed's generation would wipe the floor with Rao-Dimi-Nishi gen thrice over.
Easily beats the new gen and would wipe the floor with them twice over in slams.

Whether or not you were asking for a schooling, you got it.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, all the big 3 declined at 29, but people still insist it's a peak age for a tennis player :unsure:
Nope, not all. Federer was perfectly fine aged merely 29. Without facing Nadal and/or Djokovic, Federer would have won 3 Slams in a row aged 29 (USO 2010, USO 2011 and RG 2011). Clearly, the problem wasn't his age. 29 years old Federer would have destroyed Philippoussis, Hewitt or Baghdatis. His problem was the opposition. Nadal and Djokovic had a higher peak than Federer, and that explains Federer's losses to them aged 29. And 28. And 27. And 26. And so on.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Nope, not all. Federer was perfectly fine aged merely 29. Withour facing Nadal and/or Djokovic, Federer would have won 3 Slams in a row aged 29 (USO 2010, USO 2011 and RG 2011). Clearly, the problem wasn't his age. 29 years old Federer would have destroyed Philippoussis, Hewitt or Baghdatis. His problem was the oppistion. Nadal and Djokovic had a higher peak than Federer, and that explains Federer's losses.
Rate Nadal slam final wins out of 10 in terms of his level.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nope, not all. Federer was perfectly fine aged merely 29. Without facing Nadal and/or Djokovic, Federer would have won 3 Slams in a row aged 29 (USO 2010, USO 2011 and RG 2011). Clearly, the problem wasn't his age. 29 years old Federer would have destroyed Philippoussis, Hewitt or Baghdatis. His problem was the oppistion. Nadal and Djokovic had a higher peak than Federer, and that explains Federer's losses.
29 year old Djokovic lost to Querrey and Istomin at slams.

29 year old Nadal was useless against everyone.

Thanks for again making a fool of yourself (y)
 

Mivic

Rookie
The fact is that Djokovic did most of his damage after Fed turned 30. You can dress it up and try to make it prettier than it really is, but at the end of the day, Djokovic's legacy is beating two past their prime ATGs with no younger ATG to deal with. Sad but true.
Djokovic’s 2011 >>>> anything that Federer has displayed in his entire career. Unfortunately, Federer can only dream of beating a prime Nadal in 7 finals in a row across three different surfaces.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
already addressed.



Ljubicic got to #3 for a little while in 06, which I already said was a relatively weak year (like 10,15)
You bringing in 1 player in Ljubicic is an actually very ****ty way of arguing.
How would you compare 2004 and 2005 and 2007 to 2011 strength wise?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
This is just one area where Federer is not as good as Djokovic. Even if he won this head to head, he still would have losing records against Nadal, Corretja, Kafelnikov and Enqvist, all who he played at least 5 times. Even still. The head to head between Federer and Djokovic from 2007 Canada to 2012 WTF is 13-12 Djokovic so he still clearly held his own and went neck and neck with prime Federer.
why from Canada 07? why not from start of 07? because it makes it 15-13 to federer?
also 07 is still federer's 4th best year.
11 - djokovic's best and 12 his 3rd best

that would still not include any matches from any of federer's best 3 years.

Edit: fed faced enqvist only 4 times. Enqvist is out.
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
already addressed.



Ljubicic got to #3 for a little while in 06, which I already said was a relatively weak year (like 10,15)
You didn't address the flaw that an argument about beating players of high rank doesn't dispel the claim that it's a weak era. That's a fatal flaw.

Also it's not about the 'year' itself being weak. You have to look at the competition faced in the slam victories.
For Nadal, 14 out of 20 slams he had to face a fellow ATG. For Federer, that number is 6 out of 20.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
why from Canada 07? why not from start of 07? because it makes it 15-13 to federer?
also 07 is still federer's 4th best year.
11 - djokovic's best and 12 his 3rd best

that would still not include any matches from any of federer's best 3 years.
Because Djokovic wasn't even a top 10 player then, nevermind top 5 and it would be 14-13 Federer so still close either way.

Because they're not the same generation. It's not uncommon for the younger ATG to win the head to head over the older one, unless you're Lendl, but Federer overall didn't have an upperhand in this rivalry once Djokovic became a top player. It was basically even.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You didn't address the flaw that an argument about beating players of high rank doesn't dispel the claim that it's a weak era. That's a fatal flaw.
Actually it does - if you knew some stuff about 04-07.


Also it's not about the 'year' itself being weak. You have to look at the competition faced in the slam victories.
already addressed in significant part when I talking about the years:


For Nadal, 14 out of 20 slams he had to face a fellow ATG. For Federer, that number is 6 out of 20.
firstly that's a very flawed way of measuring. Roddick of Wim 04 & Wim 09 for example >>>> Djokovic of RG 20.

Your numbers are wrong as well.
Fed faced Agassi in USO 04, USO 05
Nadal in Wim 06& 07, AO 17
Djokovic in AO 07, USO 07,08&Wim 12

you got the numbers of nadal+djokovic itself wrong and obviously didn't count Agassi in 04-05 as you are ignorant+biased about fed's peak.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
already addressed.



Ljubicic got to #3 for a little while in 06, which I already said was a relatively weak year (like 10,15)
You bringing in 1 player in Ljubicic is an actually very ****ty way of arguing.
2015 Nadal ended no.5 in 2015, but people still bring up Ljubicic who was better than 2015 Nadal at least :-D
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Djokovic’s 2011 >>>> anything that Federer has displayed in his entire career. Unfortunately, Federer can only dream of beating a prime Nadal in 7 finals in a row across three different surfaces.
True, just like Djokovic could only dream of being undefeated vs Stan off clay (y)

Federer would never have a winning streak over 2011 Nadal like that, but he'd still beat him at least in a slam final since Nadal was unremarkable in them.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Because Djokovic wasn't even a top 10 player then, nevermind top 5 and it would be 14-13 Federer so still close either way.

Because they're not the same generation. It's not uncommon for the younger ATG to win the head to head over the older one, unless you're Lendl, but Federer overall didn't have an upperhand in this rivalry once Djokovic became a top player. It was basically even.
its the norm.
Like I said, 11, 12 were 2 of djokovic's top 3 years. that phase you choose doesn't include any of fed's top 3 years.
so again not a fair comparision.

Also:
fed went 4-1 vs djoko in slams in his prime years in 07-09
djoko went 3-2 vs fed in slams in 2 of his best 3 years (a point away from 2-3)

fed of RG 12 semi was no better than Djoko of AO 07, so don't grumble about that.

Also see my edit about Fed-Enqvist. they played only 4 matches. So that's out.
 

Nadal_Django

Hall of Fame
Top 5:

2015- Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Wawrinka, Nadal

2006- Federer, Baby Nadal, Ljubicic, Robredo, Bobinagis

LOL


Edit: How can anyone say 2015 is weak with the Big 5 all finish in the YE Top 5, is really beyond me. :oops:
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Top 5:

2015- Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Wawrinka, Nadal

2006- Federer, Baby Nadal, Ljubicic, Robredo, Bobinagis

LOL

Edit: How can anyone say 2015 is weak with the Big 5 all finish in the YE Top 5, is really beyond me. :oops:
How did Nadal play in 2015 compared to his usual standard?
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
Fed faced Agassi in USO 04, USO 05
Nadal in Wim 06& 07, AO 17
Djokovic in AO 07, USO 07,08&Wim 12

you got the numbers of nadal+djokovic itself wrong and obviously didn't count Agassi in 04-05 as you are ignorant+biased about fed's peak.
I see Agassi as a great, but not an all time great. I would say the top 10 greatest players of all time are ATGs, and I don't see Agassi in the top 10.

But even by your measure, Federer has won 9 slams facing ATGs. Nadal is on 14, way higher.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
its the norm.
Like I said, 11, 12 were 2 of djokovic's top 3 years. that phase you choose doesn't include any of fed's top 3 years.
so again not a fair comparision.

Also:
fed went 4-1 vs djoko in slams in his prime years in 07-09
djoko went 3-2 vs fed in slams in 2 of his best 3 years (a point away from 2-3)

fed of RG 12 semi was no better than Djoko of AO 07, so don't grumble about that.

Also see my edit about Fed-Enqvist. they played only 4 matches. So that's out.
I'm not one of the people who thinks Federer's prime ended after AO 2010. I think he remained in his prime until the end of 2012, and Djokovic went 4-2 from 2010 USO to 2012 Wimbledon. None of this matters anyway. Give him the Djokovic head to head, and he still loses the Nadal one badly, as well as against Kafelnikov and Corretja, and 5 other head to heads where he played at least 3 matches against other players. So again, he still did not do as well as Djokovic did versus the field.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I don't agree but you're entitled to your opinion.
I mean, Fed did have a prime-ish (but not prime) stretch from 2011 USO until 2012 Cincy, but that doesn't mean he was in his prime.

Too many losses before the semis of slams for him to be prime.

The most you can say was that he was prime-ish, but certainly not prime like in 2004-early 2010.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
I mean, Fed did have a prime-ish (but not prime) stretch from 2011 USO until 2012 Cincy, but that doesn't mean he was in his prime.

Too many losses before the semis of slams for him to be prime.

The most you can say was that he was prime-ish, but certainly not prime like in 2004-early 2010.
He made a Slam SF 7/8 times from 2010 USO until 2012 Wimbledon but I'm not going to argue with you if you think otherwise. Him going #1 in that strong era, as well as strong performances in Slams like RG 2011, USO 2011 and 2012 W spells out to me that he was still in his prime there but we all see things differently.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
He made a Slam SF 7/8 times from 2010 USO until 2012 Wimbledon but I'm not going to argue with you if you think otherwise. Him going #1 in that strong era spells out to me that he was still in his prime there but we all see things differently.
Which is why I said prime-ish.

Prime he was not because of all those pre-SF slam losses. Choking in back to back slams from 2-0 up didn't help matters either.
 

Krish0608

Hall of Fame
Was really impressed with how Thiem handled the USO 2020 final with all his experience.
Do you think he would have won against a more experienced slam winner/finalist? He won only because Zverev choked when the moment presented itself. Against a more experienced player, Thiem would have surely lost. If and when Thiem plays his next slam final, he’ll be much more composed and ready to play his best in the Big moments. I’m so sure of that.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I see Agassi as a great, but not an all time great. I would say the top 10 greatest players of all time are ATGs, and I don't see Agassi in the top 10.

But even by your measure, Federer has won 9 slams facing ATGs. Nadal is on 14, way higher.
Commonly accepted consensus is Becker-Edberg-Wilander level of achievements. Agassi is clearly above that. Definite ATG. not just my measure.
You probably just made up your criteria just now.

That isn't my measure.
Also like I said: firstly that's a very flawed way of measuring. Roddick of Wim 04 & Wim 09 for example >>>> Djokovic of RG 20.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Do you think he would have won against a more experienced slam winner/finalist? He won only because Zverev choked when the moment presented itself. Against a more experienced player, Thiem would have surely lost. If and when Thiem plays his next slam final, he’ll be much more composed and ready to play his best in the Big moments. I’m so sure of that.
Which is exactly my point. In his 4th slam final Thiem played like he had never reached one before.

I don't think he will ever play well in the big moments. He is just not that kind of guy.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I'm not one of the people who thinks Federer's prime ended after AO 2010. I think he remained in his prime until the end of 2012, and Djokovic went 4-2 from 2010 USO to 2012 Wimbledon.
yes, it did. YEC 2003-AO 2010.
USO 11-Cincy 12 was prime-ish at best (thanks to Bo3 outside of clay) wouldn't get tired/sloppy movement in prime years like he did in USO 11 4th set. wouldn't struggle as much on slow as molasses surface in AO 12 at prime level vs Nadal. RG 12 obviously was a dump.
Wim 12 his 8th best Wim, prime-ish maybe.

RG 11 was an exception in that the balls helped compensate for the loss of a step. But then AO 08 - only loss fed had in his prime in slams to djokovic - was prime Djokovic for sure.


None of this matters anyway. Give him the Djokovic head to head, and he still loses the Nadal one badly, as well as against Kafelnikov and Corretja, and 5 other head to heads where he played at least 3 matches against other players. So again, he still did not do as well as Djokovic did versus the field.
sorry, you can't change criteria now.
Secondly. all of fed's losses to kafelnikov were in years where fed wasn't even top 10 (99-01)
same goes for Corretja - all losses for fed when fed wasn't even top 10 in the year (99-01)

means little
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
He made a Slam SF 7/8 times from 2010 USO until 2012 Wimbledon but I'm not going to argue with you if you think otherwise. Him going #1 in that strong era, as well as strong performances in Slams like RG 2011, USO 2011 and 2012 W spells out to me that he was still in his prime there but we all see things differently.
Well, there's also the fact that 2012 Fed shouldn't have even been in the RG semis. Lucked out with Delpo's injury.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
yes, it did. YEC 2003-AO 2010.
USO 11-Cincy 12 was prime-ish at best. wouldn't get tired/sloppy movement in prime years like he did in USO 11 4th set. wouldn't struggle as much on slow as molasses surface in AO 12 at prime level vs Nadal. RG 12 obviously was a dump.
Wim 12 his 8th best Wim, prime-ish maybe.

RG 11 was an exception in that the balls helped compensate for the loss of a step. But then AO 08 - only loss fed had in his prime in slams to djokovic - was prime Djokovic for sure.




sorry, you can't change criteria now.
Secondly. all of fed's losses to kafelnikov were in years where fed wasn't even top 10 (99-01)
same goes for Corretja

means little
Ok you think it wasn't his prime but I do.

This still doesn't change the fact that Federer has 4 losing head to heads where he played at least 5 matches (not even including the Thiem and and Zverev ones for obvious reasons) while Djokovic has 1. Or Federer has 10 (plus Thiem and Zverev) losing head to heads to players he played at least twice and Djokovic has 6. Djokovic just owned the field better than Federer did.
 
Top