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

NatF

Bionic Poster
So I guess Fed should have lost more like Djokovic to make his competition seem stronger.
Fed's dominance over a good field in 2004 is a showcase in how he was able to raise his level in big matches that year. Henman who ended the year in the top 10 did beat Fed in Rottadam anyway. If Fed threw in flat performances like Djokovic did in 2015 he probably would have dropped some more matches.
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
Fed's dominance over a good field in 2004 is a showcase in how he was able to raise his level in big matches that year. Henman who ended the year in the top 10 did beat Fed in Rottadam anyway. If Fed threw in flat performances like Djokovic did in 2015 he probably would have dropped some more matches.
You been converted to VB? Nice DP.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Fed's dominance over a good field in 2004 is a showcase in how he was able to raise his level in big matches that year. Henman who ended the year in the top 10 did beat Fed in Rottadam anyway. If Fed threw in flat performances like Djokovic did in 2015 he probably would have dropped some more matches.
And at the same time, Nadal is a string opponent in 2011 despite never beating Djokovic.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
So I guess Fed should have lost more like Djokovic to make his competition seem stronger.
He did lose, and had a worse record than 2015 Djokovic. That's not the point. The point is, none of the talented players of his generation beat him: including Safin, Fererro, Roddick, Hewitt and Nalbandian. All players who did well in 2003 and two of them who won Slams and were #1. The top 10 didn't even play him but 18 times, showing their inconsistency, compared to Djokovic in 2015 playing the top ten 36 times, double the amount. So no I do not think 2004 was stronger than 2015, at all.
 

blablavla

Legend
He did lose, and had a worse record than 2015 Djokovic. That's not the point. The point is, none of the talented players of his generation beat him: including Safin, Fererro, Roddick, Hewitt and Nalbandian. All players who did well in 2003 and two of them who won Slams and were #1. The top 10 didn't even play him but 18 times, showing their inconsistency, compared to Djokovic in 2015 playing the top ten 36 times, double the amount. So no I do not think 2004 was stronger than 2015, at all.
which again can be argued to make 2 points:
1. the field was more balanced in 2003, so more upsets happened, hence less matches vs top 10, but overall tougher competition
2. glorious 2015
(when the champion of the weak era was still 63-11, or 60-6 if you exclude Djokovic and Nadal, reaching Wim & USO final, with 6 titles, ranked #3?)

pick your side and argue :D
 

Nole Slam

Legend
which again can be argued to make 2 points:
1. the field was more balanced in 2003, so more upsets happened, hence less matches vs top 10, but overall tougher competition
2. glorious 2015
(when the champion of the weak era was still 63-11, or 60-6 if you exclude Djokovic and Nadal, reaching Wim & USO final, with 6 titles, ranked #3?)

pick your side and argue :D
2003 was a vacuum year.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
He did lose, and had a worse record than 2015 Djokovic. That's not the point. The point is, none of the talented players of his generation beat him: including Safin, Fererro, Roddick, Hewitt and Nalbandian. All players who did well in 2003 and two of them who won Slams and were #1. The top 10 didn't even play him but 18 times, showing their inconsistency, compared to Djokovic in 2015 playing the top ten 36 times, double the amount. So no I do not think 2004 was stronger than 2015, at all.
I which you good luck. The Federer fans are not gonna let this one go.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
He did lose, and had a worse record than 2015 Djokovic. That's not the point. The point is, none of the talented players of his generation beat him: including Safin, Fererro, Roddick, Hewitt and Nalbandian. All players who did well in 2003 and two of them who won Slams and were #1. The top 10 didn't even play him but 18 times, showing their inconsistency, compared to Djokovic in 2015 playing the top ten 36 times, double the amount. So no I do not think 2004 was stronger than 2015, at all.
This is wrong BTW. It's actually more Federer's inconsistency or missing masters than the top 10's fault that he didn't meet them more. He lost early in Miami, Rome and Cincy, skipped MC, Madrid Indoors and Paris. In slams he met the top 10 7 times to Djokovic's 10, again the major difference is losing before the final at the FO rather than making it through to Nalbandian and Coria. At the AO he also met Hewitt and Safin who were top 4 players at the end of the year but not at that moment. If you look at who won the masters events or went deep in those events that year Federer would have racked up several more top 10 meetings if he'd made it to the finals - obviously the fact Djokovic did go deep in basically every event is to his credit, but framing Federer's lower number of top 10 meetings as a failure of the 2004 top 10 is incorrect.

Also as I've said before the approach to masters events was different in those years as well, they had only recently become mandatory and I think the approach to scheduling was a little different back then. I do think the lack of bye and frequent BO5 format was partly to blame as well.

Edit: Looking at the draws if Federer went deep in every masters event I think in all but Paris he would have had to play at least two top 10 players if he made the final. So with a final at the French as well he'd be sitting at a very similar number of top 10 meetings to Djokovic in 2015.
 
Last edited:

RS

G.O.A.T.
For God sake pls change the dp one among the three. Its getting confusing to understand as who is saying what ansd why
It’s not my fault people copy me. I changed it last time went NatF copied so won’t be changing it for at least a couple months.
 

Nole Slam

Legend
The thing about 2016 is that I felt that Djokovic reached his highest level early that year.

It can be argued that the true vacuum era started when Querrey beat Djokovic at Wimbledon. Murray later took advantage of Djokovic collapsing.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
He did lose, and had a worse record than 2015 Djokovic. That's not the point. The point is, none of the talented players of his generation beat him: including Safin, Fererro, Roddick, Hewitt and Nalbandian. All players who did well in 2003 and two of them who won Slams and were #1. The top 10 didn't even play him but 18 times, showing their inconsistency, compared to Djokovic in 2015 playing the top ten 36 times, double the amount. So no I do not think 2004 was stronger than 2015, at all.
I guess Nadal was not a strong opponent in 2011 at all. Good to know.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
The thing about 2016 is that I felt that Djokovic reached his highest level early that year.

It can be argued that the true vacuum era started when Querrey beat Djokovic at Wimbledon. Murray later took advantage of Djokovic collapsing.
Djokovic was great up till RG even.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I already saw it.
I think Fed's spotless record can be framed a couple of different ways. On the one hand if he made it deeper in some other events there's a chance he loses to some of those top 10 players who were in better form than him. But at the same time I don't know if Djokovic replicates Federer's 18-0 against the same players. Swings and roundabouts.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
which again can be argued to make 2 points:
1. the field was more balanced in 2003, so more upsets happened, hence less matches vs top 10, but overall tougher competition
2. glorious 2015
(when the champion of the weak era was still 63-11, or 60-6 if you exclude Djokovic and Nadal, reaching Wim & USO final, with 6 titles, ranked #3?)

pick your side and argue :D
I didn't say 2015 was glorious. I said it was better than 2004 and you may would have a point about Federer if I didn't know any better and didn't see the level he played from Wimbledon through the USO.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
This is wrong BTW. It's actually more Federer's inconsistency or missing masters than the top 10's fault that he didn't meet them more. He lost early in Miami, Rome and Cincy, skipped MC, Madrid Indoors and Paris. In slams he met the top 10 7 times to Djokovic's 10, again the major difference is losing before the final at the FO rather than making it through to Nalbandian and Coria. At the AO he also met Hewitt and Safin who were top 4 players at the end of the year but not at that moment. If you look at who won the masters events or went deep in those events that year Federer would have racked up several more top 10 meetings if he'd made it to the finals - obviously the fact Djokovic did go deep in basically every event is to his credit, but framing Federer's lower number of top 10 meetings as a failure of the 2004 top 10 is incorrect.

Also as I've said before the approach to masters events was different in those years as well, they had only recently become mandatory and I think the approach to scheduling was a little different back then. I do think the lack of bye and frequent BO5 format was partly to blame as well.

Edit: Looking at the draws if Federer went deep in every masters event I think in all but Paris he would have had to play at least two top 10 players if he made the final. So with a final at the French as well he'd be sitting at a very similar number of top 10 meetings to Djokovic in 2015.
We have had this debate before and neither one of our opinions on this have changed so this is just rehashing the same old points really. You brought up Federer not doing well in several Masters events and skipping some, which is true, and the reason he wasn't meeting these guys is because he lost early but what about IW? The top players he played there were Agassi and Henman, who was barely top 10 at that point, and both older guard. Even Roddick in Miami only played Moya and Coria, both better on clay, and faced none of those guys I was talking about. The top 10 just wasn't as strong in the biggest events and making it deep there like the top guys of 2015 were. Safin came on strong in the fall but really didnt much for over half the year, etc. Even in 500 events, Djokovic played the top 10 multiple times in events like Dubai and Beijing. Federer played a top 10 player once in a lower level event, Roddick in Bangkok, and Safin in Dubai, who was outside the top 10.
 
Last edited:

RS

G.O.A.T.
I think Fed's spotless record can be framed a couple of different ways. On the one hand if he made it deeper in some other events there's a chance he loses to some of those top 10 players who were in better form than him. But at the same time I don't know if Djokovic replicates Federer's 18-0 against the same players. Swings and roundabouts.
I think your debating the wrong guy no in the 04 vs 15 debate :D

I don’t think the competition difference for both Fed and Djokovic was huge in 04 and 15.
 
Last edited:

blablavla

Legend
I didn't say 2015 was glorious. I said it was better than 2004 and you may would have a point about Federer if I didn't know any better and didn't see the level he played from Wimbledon through the USO.
ok, I see
so the famous eye-test that Nole fans laugh about when being used as an argument for 2003 - 2007 not being weak era, now is brought by a Nole fan as an argument that 2015 is stronker than 2004

(y)(y)(y)
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
ok, I see
so the famous eye-test that Nole fans laugh about when being used as an argument for 2003 - 2007 not being weak era, now is brought by a Nole fan as an argument that 2015 is stronker than 2004

(y)(y)(y)
You might also want to look at his stats from that timeframe and I don't go around posting about 2003-2007 being a weak era, and getting into those arguments. Take up your grievances with the right people. Yea I think 2015 was stronger than 2004. So what? The sun will still rise and set today.
 
Last edited:

aditya123

Hall of Fame
See what we have here!! A never ending series of conversations that is more likely to have a life longer than the fast & furious movie series ... @abmk should be penalized for this.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
We have had this debate before and neither one of our opinions on this have changed so this is just rehashing the same old points really. You brought up Federer not doing well in several Masters events and skipping some, which is true, and the reason he wasn't meeting these guys is because he lost early but what about IW? The top players he played there were Agassi and Henman, who was barely top 10 at that point, and both older guard. Even Roddick in Miami only played Moya and Coria, both better on clay, and faced none of those guys I was talking about. The top 10 just wasn't as strong in the biggest events and making it deep there like the top guys of 2015 were. Safin came on strong in the fall but really didnt much for over half the year, etc. Even in 500 events, Djokovic played the top 10 multiple times in events like Dubai and Beijing. Federer played a top 10 player once in a lower level event, Roddick in Bangkok, and Safin in Dubai, who was outside the top 10.
Parking the relative strength of the players stuff for a second it would be nice for you to acknowledge a little more obviously that it wasn't the top 10's inconsistency that led to "only" 18 top 10 meetings for Federer in 2004 lol. The top 10 players were waiting in those events. Not their fault if Fed skipped several masters and lost early in a few.

As far as who they were, that's a different discussion. For one in Miami Federer would have to go through Coria and Roddick, versus Djokovic facing Ferrer and Murray - I actually think the 04 draw would have be harder but we'll probably disagree there. Certainly I don't think there's that's a clear point for 2015, if we look at Murray's draw like you did for Roddick then it's probably Ferrer and Berdych for him - I would certainly back Moya/Coria there. As far as IW goes, Henman actually beat Federer in Rottadam and what was Fed in 2015 if not the older guard anyway? Yes Djokovic beat Murray as well but he was toothless and played badly (as did Henman), not sure who was better between Agassi and Federer at IW in those years. I will say that Henman at least had to beat Roddick in a very high quality match on his way to the final so could see him topping Murray 1v1 - sure you'll disagree here lol.

Besides that the number of top 10 meetings Federer had is quite consistent with some earlier era's as well, for example Pete in 1993 faced 19 top 10 players, in 1994 it was 18, in 1995 it was 21 and in 1997 it was 14 etc...Even in those years Pete never faced more than five top 10 players in the slams in a year and I certainly don't consider 1993-1995 weak years at all.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
You. The sneaky nightcrawler on the hook sitting and waiting for the fish to bite. Lol
I wanted to mix it up instead of asking the usual question.

What do you think was the best match Djokovic played in 2015 or if you can’t narrow down one top 5?
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Parking the relative strength of the players stuff for a second it would be nice for you to acknowledge a little more obviously that it wasn't the top 10's inconsistency that led to "only" 18 top 10 meetings for Federer in 2004 lol. The top 10 players were waiting in those events. Not their fault if Fed skipped several masters and lost early in a few.

As far as who they were, that's a different discussion. For one in Miami Federer would have to go through Coria and Roddick, versus Djokovic facing Ferrer and Murray - I actually think the 04 draw would have be harder but we'll probably disagree there. Certainly I don't think there's that's a clear point for 2015, if we look at Murray's draw like you did for Roddick then it's probably Ferrer and Berdych for him - I would certainly back Moya/Coria there. As far as IW goes, Henman actually beat Federer in Rottadam and what was Fed in 2015 if not the older guard anyway? Yes Djokovic beat Murray as well but he was toothless and played badly (as did Henman), not sure who was better between Agassi and Federer at IW in those years. I will say that Henman at least had to beat Roddick in a very high quality match on his way to the final so could see him topping Murray 1v1 - sure you'll disagree here lol.

Besides that the number of top 10 meetings Federer had is quite consistent with some earlier era's as well, for example Pete in 1993 faced 19 top 10 players, in 1994 it was 18, in 1995 it was 21 and in 1997 it was 14 etc...Even in those years Pete never faced more than five top 10 players in the slams in a year and I certainly don't consider 1993-1995 weak years at all.
If we compare top players of 2004 versus top players of 2015 on who made it deeper in the biggest events, who do you think is going to come out on top?

Murray went through Anderson, Thiem, Berdych and then would face Ferrer without Djokovic in Miami. That draw is easily stronger than Roddick's in 2003. Djokovic didn't play his best in 2015 Canada final, but certainly didn't play badly, and Murray played quite well on the other hand winning the backhand battle that day. And yea I don't see Henman beating Murray at Miami. He barely scraped by Roddick and got crushed by Federer.

How can Pete be the barometer for facing the top 10 when we know he didn't take events outside of Slams and WTF that seriously and only won 11 Masters events in his career? It also was a different time and era compared to the one Federer and then Djokovic played in and much more polarized.
 
Last edited:

blablavla

Legend
If we compare top players of 2004 versus top players of 2015 on who made it deeper in the biggest events, who do you think is going to come out on top?

Murray went through Anderson, Thiem, Berdych and then would face Ferrer without Djokovic in Miami. That draw is easily stronger than Roddick's in 2003. Djokovic didn't play his best in 2015 Canada final, but certainly didn't play badly, and Murray played quite well on the hand winning the backhand battle that day. And yea I don't see Henman beating Murray at Miami. He barely scraped by Roddick and got crushed by Federer.

How can Pete be the barometer for facing the top 10 when we know he didn't take events outside of Slams and WTF that seriously and only won 11 Masters events in his career? It also was a different time and era compared to the one Federer and then Djokovic played in and much more polarized.
are you talking about that Roddick that leads Novak in their H2H by 5-4?
or the one that climbed to #1 in ranking?
or perhaps the one that won a GS title and reached numerous finals?

can you help me to understand which of the following players has done it as well?
Anderson, Thiem, Berdych, Ferrer
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Y'all got this. No need for my input. :laughing:
That's your argument? That lunatic fed-hater (pretended to be Nadal fan, now pretending to be Djokovic fan) sprouting BS? :-D

2004 Wim final Roddick and 2004 USO QF agassi > any opponent djokovic beat in slams in 2015 quite clearly. But go ahead and make the argument otherwise if you want to show you can't be anywhere near objective.
even 2004 AO QF nalby was better as well


You already owned yourself with the top 10 argument anyways.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
are you talking about that Roddick that leads Novak in their H2H by 5-4?
or the one that climbed to #1 in ranking?
or perhaps the one that won a GS title and reached numerous finals?

can you help me to understand which of the following players has done it as well?
Anderson, Thiem, Berdych, Ferrer
What are you even talking about? I was talking about Murray's draw comapred to Roddick's not if the players Murray faced are as good as Roddick.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Who wins these 5 matchups? By sets.

1. Federer AO 05 vs Djokovic AO 11
2. Nadal Wim 06 final vs Federer Wim 15 final
3. Agassi USO 04 vs Federer USO 15
4. Del Potro RG 09 SF vs Wawrinka RG 15 final
5. Roddick USO 07 QF vs Djokovic USO 15 final
 
Top