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

[NatF]

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.

2015 Thiem? Really? lol. Carlos Moya and Coria were better than anyone Murray faced in his draw IMO - even including Coria's injury part way through the match. No clearly about it. Roddick probably played as well in Canada in 2004 as Murray did BTW, he just came against Federer on top of his game Also Murray got crushed by Djokovic in IW and even won less games than Henman, I guess that's better than getting crushed by Federer? Also if you haven't watched the IW match between Henman/Roddick it's fine to admit it btw. Like I said it was a high quality match, you say scraping by Roddick as if it's a negative thing - he only dropped one set to a peak in-form Roddick and won the final set 6-3 anyway. Some of this is match-ups but I don't see Djokovic routing that Roddick in straights and certainly not 2&3, so it was a very good win for Henman and one that is missing from Murray's IW campaign.

You talk about polarisation and then ignore that the mid-00's were somewhat more polarised than the mid 10's...Do you think Fed took masters titles that seriously? To the same degree as Djokovic? I also don't agree that consistency of the top 10 is the only way to measure strength of a year anyway, declining Ferrer/Berdych/Tsonga sitting comfortably in the top 10 is not what I call a strong year.

 

[NoleFam]

2015 Thiem? Really? lol. Carlos Moya and Coria were better than anyone Murray faced in his draw IMO - even including Coria's injury part way through the match. No clearly about it. Roddick probably played as well in Canada in 2004 as Murray did BTW, he just came against Federer on top of his game Also Murray got crushed by Djokovic in IW and even won less games than Henman, I guess that's better than getting crushed by Federer? Also if you haven't watched the IW match between Henman/Roddick it's fine to admit it btw. Like I said it was a high quality match, you say scraping by Roddick as if it's a negative thing - he only dropped one set to a peak in-form Roddick and won the final set 6-3 anyway. Some of this is match-ups but I don't see Djokovic routing that Roddick in straights and certainly not 2&3, so it was a very good win for Henman and one that is missing from Murray's IW campaign.

You talk about polarisation and then ignore that the mid-00's were somewhat more polarised than the mid 10's...Do you think Fed took masters titles that seriously? To the same degree as Djokovic? I also don't agree that consistency of the top 10 is the only way to measure strength of a year anyway, declining Ferrer/Berdych/Tsonga sitting comfortably in the top 10 is not what I call a strong year.

Yea Thiem gave Murray a tough match. Murray was crap in that IW SF match so no argument from me since I was talking about Miami. This is just going around in circles at this point.

Mid 2000's more polarized than 2010's? Yes, thanks to carpet which was gone by 2006 anyway but not a whole lot of difference elsewhere. USO was faster for a few years but then AO sped up in late 2010's.

We just don't agree on this man, didn't agree on this 3 years ago, and I'm tired of talking about it really. I don't see the point and don't know why everything that's disagreed with needs to be responded to and argued into oblivion.

 

[RS]

Doesn’t matter if 2004 and. 2006 was stronger or weaker than 2015 or 2011 can’t be proven anyway

Don’t know why people all get in heated debates over these things.

 

[NatF]

Yea Thiem gave Murray a tough match. Murray was crap in that IW SF match so no argument from me since I was talking about Miami. This is just going around in circles at this point.

Mid 2000's more polarized than 2010's? Yes, thanks to carpet which was gone by 2006 anyway but not a whole lot of difference elsewhere. USO was faster for a few years but then AO sped up in late 2010's.

We just don't agree on this man, didn't agree on this 3 years ago, and I'm tired of talking about it really. I don't see the point and don't know why everything that's disagreed with needs to be responded to and argued into oblivion.

Well the main thing I disagreed with was you saying Federer had only 18 top 10 meetings because the 2004 top players were inconsistent, I think it should be evident that's incorrect now. Everything else is pretty subjective so let's agree to disagree. No point falling out over this stuff. I want to try and be a bit more amicable this year. Unless someone is trolling or being really unreasonable lol.

I think with all these years there's always going to be bright spots etc...that as fans we either see or don't see. You're right no point arguing.

 

[NoleFam]

Well the main thing I disagreed with was you saying Federer had only 18 top 10 meetings because the 2004 top players were inconsistent, I think it should be evident that's incorrect now. Everything else is pretty subjective so let's agree to disagree. No point falling out over this stuff. I want to try and be a bit more amicable this year. Unless someone is trolling or being really unreasonable lol.

I think with all these years there's always going to be bright spots etc...that as fans we either see or don't see. You're right no point arguing.

Well I do think the 2004 top 10 were less consistent than 2015 but I will agree that that's not the main reason Federer didn't face them. But yea agree to disagree here.

Yea no point in arguing unless someone says Federer was crap in 2004 and didn't deserve his Slams. That's something to push back on but not this.

 

[mike danny]

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.

Honestly, same thing for 2005. Fed skipped 4 masters 1000 and lost before the semis in another.

Even at AO 2005, he would have met Hewitt if he hadn't lost to Safin. Novak's top 10 losses always came in the finals, so he didn't miss out on other top 10 meetings in 2015.

Fed would have played Nadal and Coria at MC 2005 if he had beaten Gasquet. Of course, his run was going to end against Nadal anyway. Who cares that Nadal wasn't a top 10 player here yet?

If he had played Rome, he would have played Coria, Agassi and Nadal all in a row.

If he had played Montreal, he would have played Nadal.

If he had played Madrid, he could have possibly played Nadal.

If he had played Paris, he would have played Ljubicic.

And that's not even counting all the times he played Ljubicic before Ljubicic finished the year in the top 10, the Miami final against Nadal and the 3 matches against Nalbandian. I don't think it's fair not to count 10 wins that Federer had over players who would go on to end 2005 inside the top 10. Why do players need to be in the top 10 at that very moment? If they ended 2005 in the top 10, then they were playing top 10 level tennis anyway.

 

[Roddickulous1]

Doesn’t matter if 2004 and. 2006 was stronger or weaker than 2015 or 2011 can’t be proven anyway

Don’t know why people all get in heated debates over these things.

You're right. Maybe these type of threads should be banned. What do you think?

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Yeah, Djokovic going 43-0 or something at the beginning of 2011 is a testament to his incredible level of play but Federer dominating the top 10 in 2004 is a weakness of the field.

That 43-0 included 3 - 0 vs prime Federer and 4 - 0 vs peak Nadal (with 2 clay wins) one of highest level of tennis ever

 

[NoleIsBoat]

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

 

[Druss]

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

1. Federer AO 05 vs Djokovic AO 11
- Djokovic in an epic 5 setter
2. Nadal Wim 06 final vs Federer Wim 15 final
- Nadal in 5, Fed will fade in the 5th
3. Agassi USO 04 vs Federer USO 15
- Agassi in 4 tight sets or in 5
4. Del Potro RG 09 SF vs Wawrinka RG 15 final
- Wawa in an epic 5 setter
5. Roddick USO 07 QF vs Djokovic USO 15 final
- Duh, Djoko obviously!

 

[Mainad]

Murray is a vacuum #1, yes.

Come back. @Mainad

Funny you should say that coz I often think of Murray as a vacuum cleaner.

 

[RS]

1. Federer AO 05 vs Djokovic AO 11
- Djokovic in an epic 5 setter
2. Nadal Wim 06 final vs Federer Wim 15 final
- Nadal in 5, Fed will fade in the 5th
3. Agassi USO 04 vs Federer USO 15
- Agassi in 4 tight sets or in 5
4. Del Potro RG 09 SF vs Wawrinka RG 15 final
- Wawa in an epic 5 setter
5. Roddick USO 07 QF vs Djokovic USO 15 final
- Duh, Djoko obviously!

Good effort.

 

[ElisRF]

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

1. Djokovic in 5
2. 50-50
3. Agassi in 5
4. 50-50
5. 50-50

 

[Biotic]

LOL, nothing to see here...

Roddick 2007 USO QF, plays well for 2.5 sets and loses in straights = ATG level

Murray, Fed or anyone else losing after 2.5 sets of good play multiple times vs Djo = worthless, useless etc.

 

[RS]

LOL, nothing to see here...

Roddick 2007 USO QF, plays well for 2.5 sets and loses in straights = ATG level

Murray, Fed or anyone else losing after 2.5 sets of good play multiple times vs Djo = worthless, useless etc.

Roddick hit 42 winners to 24 errors in that match.

Djokovic did beat lots of in-form players those who say otherwise have a agenda.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

things you learn on TTW ->
07 USO QF Roddick = ATG level better than any Federer since 2011 and same level as Nadal/Djokovic

04 AO Nalbandian >>> any Murray at AO or Federer there since 2011

 

[Biotic]

Roddick hit 42 winners to 24 errors in that match.

Djokovic did beat lots of in-form players those who say otherwise have a agenda.

30 to 29 says TA. Either way winners and UEs don't tell the whole story.

But that is not the point of my post.

 

[NatF]

30 to 29 says TA. Either way winners and UEs don't tell the whole story.

But that is not the point of my post.

Official count is 42 W to 24 UE, some early TA charts aren't the best (check out the stats for the 2013 final) - also some ignore service winners etc...

 

[RS]

30 to 29 says TA. Either way winners and UEs don't tell the whole story.

But that is not the point of my post.

NatF made a good point below.

I gave Novak praise in your main part and said it is harsh not to give praise the times Murray and Federer played well.

 

[RS]

things you learn on TTW ->
07 USO QF Roddick = ATG level better than any Federer since 2011 and same level as Nadal/Djokovic

04 AO Nalbandian >>> any Murray at AO or Federer there since 2011

Who said this?

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Who said this?

The usual Federer fan acolytes

 

[abmk]

Who said this?

Literally no one.
Clueless delusional Djokovic boy is pissed off everyone doesn't agree to his ignorant^delusional views regarding Djokovic/his era - so makes up stuff like that

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Literally no one.
Clueless delusional Djokovic boy is pissed off everyone doesn't agree to his ignorant^delusional views regarding Djokovic/his era - so makes up stuff like that

I’ve seen you multiple times compare 04 Nalbandian and 07 Roddick to several versions of Djokovic/Nadal

 

[abmk]

LOL, nothing to see here...

Roddick 2007 USO QF, plays well for 2.5 sets and loses in straights = ATG level

Murray, Fed or anyone else losing after 2.5 sets of good play multiple times vs Djo = worthless, useless etc.

Roddick played well in the middle 2 sets of USO 06 final. No one called that final from him as ATG level because of the other 2 sets. Analogous to Djokovic in USO 13 final. Analogous to Fed in Wim 15 final.

Roddick would've won those first 2 sets in USO 07 QF vs anyone else in that tournament and that includes Djokovic. Its because he played at such a high level that federer returning fairly well and playing very well in general still couldn't get a BP in the 1st 2 sets.

No one calls Roddick of Wim 03 SF as ATG level because he didn't serve close to his best - though rest of his game was clicking. In USO 07 QF, he did serve his best along with rest of his game clicking.

 

[RS]

To cheer Djokovic fans up

AO 11 final - 10/10
AO 13 SF - 10/10
AO 16 SF - 10/10
AO 19 final - 10/10
AO 11 SF - 9.5/10
Wim 15 final - 9.5/10
USO 12 QF - 9.5/10
AO 12 final - 9.5/10
USO 11 final - 9/10
AO 16 final - 9/10

Some of many top level matches from Djokovic at slams vs top players that would be ranked over USO 07 Roddick and would beat him

 

[abmk]

I’ve seen you multiple times compare 04 Nalbandian and 07 Roddick to several versions of Djokovic/Nadal

if djokovic plays ****e in 2 of the 4 sets in USO 13 final or loses to Nishi in USO 14 semi or you have Nadal servlessdal in USO 11/Nadal of USO 19 for example, I'm going to say Roddick playing at his best in USO 07 QF is better than those versions of Djokovic/Nadal as anyone who has some common sense, watches some tennis and doesn't have his head up you know where would.

I didn't say USO 07 Roddick was better than USO 10 Nadal or USO 11 Djokovic for instance. Those versions of nadal/Djokovic are better.

I never said this either
"04 AO Nalbandian >>> any Murray at AO or Federer there since 2011"

What I said was 04 AO Nalby was similar level to Murray of AO 12 semi.

 

[RS]

The usual Federer fan acolytes

If somebody did say that then i disagree.

 

[RS]

A peak series between Djokovic and Roddick in slams

AO - 90-10 Djokovic
RG - 99-1 Djokovic
Wim - 60-40 Djokovic
USO - 60-40 Djokovic

 

[Nole Slam]

A peak series between Djokovic and Roddick in slams

AO - 90-10 Djokovic
RG - 99-1 Djokovic
Wim - 60-40 Djokovic
USO - 60-40 Djokovic

 

[RS]

Lol I think that is fair tbh.

 

[Jaitock1991]

It matters when your opponent has prior experience winning slams/being a finalist several times. The occasion can easily get to you. Nadal is usually an anomaly in most cases. But in this case, Nadal played Puerta who had no prior experience himself. What I am getting at is, you need a bit of a luck with your first slam breakthrough. Djokovic lost his first slam final against Federer not because he was worse, but because Federer managed the conditions better despite playing quite mediocre. Djokovic lacked the experience at that stage. Against Tsonga, Djokovic had prior experience while Tsonga had none. This is not a rule obviously. But experience matters a LOT, when it comes to GS finals and it's quite understated.

Would be interesting to see some stats on the winning percentage of players playing in their maiden GS finals, facing former GS champions only. Winning it, only Wawrinka and Delpo comes to mind. Other than those, I can't think of anyone else recently on tour(Fedal not being among these, as neither defeated a former GS champion in their maiden finals). Gonzalez, Djoker, Tsonga, Soderling, Murray, Berdych, Ferrer, Anderson, Thiem off the top of my head all being on the losing side.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

A peak series between Djokovic and Roddick in slams

AO - 90-10 Djokovic
RG - 99-1 Djokovic
Wim - 60-40 Djokovic
USO - 60-40 Djokovic

2004 Wimbledon Roddick >>> any Djokovic on grass

 

[RS]

2004 Wimbledon Roddick >>> any Djokovic on grass

Disagree.

 

[The_Order]

OP struggling for attention big time lately...

No, a win against Blake does not carry the same weight as a win against Federer

Try again cry baby

 

[Nole Slam]

2004 Wimbledon Roddick >>> any Djokovic on grass

You're overrating the Serb. It's actually >>>>>>>>>>>

 

[NoleIsBoat]

You're overrating the Serb. It's actually >>>>>>>>>>>

Grass tier: Federer > Roddick >>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic

HC tier: Federer > Safin> Nalbandian > 07 QF Roddick >>>>> Djokovic

 

[alexio]

You're overrating the Serb. It's actually >>>>>>>>>>>

initially i thought it's sureshs here in your avi, but only when you enlarged it i got it's some guy from videogame

 

[Nole Slam]

initially i thought it's sureshs here in your avi, but only when you enlarged it i got it's some guy from videogame

It's some silly looking GTA guy wearing the Red Star Belgrade dress. I just find it funny.

 

[RS]

OP struggling for attention big time lately...

No, a win against Blake does not carry the same weight as a win against Federer

Try again cry baby

What about a win over USO 04 Agassi carrying the same worth?

 

[RS]

You're overrating the Serb. It's actually >>>>>>>>>>>

Give Djokovic more credit.

 

[Nole Slam]

Give Djokovic more credit.

A peak series between Djokovic and Bogdanovic at Wimbledon.

50-50

 

[ElisRF]

LOL, nothing to see here...

Roddick 2007 USO QF, plays well for 2.5 sets and loses in straights = ATG level

Murray, Fed or anyone else losing after 2.5 sets of good play multiple times vs Djo = worthless, useless etc.

I said they all had equal competition on another thread.

I never meant to bash Djokovic the question was asked who would win and to me on the faster surfaces Roddick would matchup well with Djokovic.

 

[The_Order]

What about a win over USO 04 Agassi carrying the same worth?

Irrelevant. He has considered all top 10 opponents to be equal which is nothing but blind cherry picking...

And he has the gall to take shots at Lew...

 

[The_Order]

LOL, nothing to see here...

Roddick 2007 USO QF, plays well for 2.5 sets and loses in straights = ATG level

Murray, Fed or anyone else losing after 2.5 sets of good play multiple times vs Djo = worthless, useless etc.

Exactly. The OP and his fellow sheep have been spewing this same garbage for over a decade...

 

[RS]

Irrelevant. He has considered all top 10 opponents to be equal which is nothing but blind cherry picking...

And he has the gall to take shots at Lew...

I partly agree but how do you rate that Agassi?

 

[The_Order]

I partly agree but how do you rate that Agassi?

It was a long time ago now...

From what I recall, I felt that Andre was the better player but still lost. The conditions aided him in that regard but there were key moments where Roger held his nerve a bit better.

But I won't be rating a 34 year old Agassi at the US Open as anywhere near on the same level as a 26 year old Federer at Wimbledon...

 

[ElisRF]

It was a long time ago now...

From what I recall, I felt that Andre was the better player but still lost. The conditions aided him in that regard but there were key moments where Roger held his nerve a bit better.

But I won't be rating a 34 year old Agassi at the US Open as anywhere near on the same level as a 26 year old Federer at Wimbledon...

Was close but Agassi wasn’t better than Federer. Federer dominated the last set so Federer was the better player in the end.

 

[ElisRF]

2004 Wimbledon Roddick >>> any Djokovic on grass

Roddick is worse but certainly not far behind.

 

[RS]

Roddick is worse but certainly not far behind.

 

[deaner2211]

vs top 10 opponents:

Federer = 67 matches in 31 slams where he made final = 2.16
Djokovic = 57 matches in 27 slams where he made final= 2.11
Nadal = 53 matches in 28 slams where he made final = 1.89

So you mean Rafa wins a slam in every 1.89 attempts when he makes the finals and Fed wins in every 2.19 attempts?