Federer doesn't have winning record vs Nadal/Djokovic combo at any GS.

[mike danny]

Not sure if I agree to the AO assertion. 2011 straight set loss to Djoker, 2012 comprehensive defeat to Nadal (not to mention how Nadal literally drubbed him in 3 sets in 2014)...somehow Fed had ceased to be competitive at the AO until this year. I hope he changes it and wins it two times more to end the debate. He has underachieved a lot at the AO (ironic thing to say I know after winning it 5 times...but that's the standard the GOAT sets for himself). The 2012 defeat stung even more because Djokovic and Nadal went on to play an epic final, and it seemed like the mantle had passed. Then, Fed lost again to Djoker in FO in semis...I digress.

We are in agreement on FO. Fed literally wasted 2 golden chances to get Nadal in 05-06. There was no way to tell of course how good Nadal would ever become. In hindsight, I can only say...."a man can only win this much". And Federer is a man after all. It's hard to top 92-5. But at the same time, I cannot overlook 4 of those 5 losses came to a 20 year old Nadal. What a strange year 2006 was.

Fed did choke 2008 W and 2011 USO. When he was not a factor anymore on AO and FO, he should have gone all Sampras during 2011-2016, simply skipped the FO, played AO occasionally, and played attacking tennis at W and USO. Hindsight is 20-20 again. I have mentioned in another thread that Fed's consistency is his own enemy. Another case in point is Djokovic himself. After being super consistent, and extremely dominant about 50% of the time during 2011-16, Djokovic is now paying the price, and I think he is finished. He will find it very very hard to come back in top form at the age of 32 in 2018. Only Fed could do it. I digress again.

Conclusion: Fed should have had 4 more slams at the expense of Nadal/Djokovic when time was more opportunistic for him (that would potentially change the 9-18 record to a more even 13-14). In hindsight, I can say this: "A man can only win so much". In a way, we are fortunate to see 2017 Fed, because he knew 17 was not enough when Nadal and Djokovic were still hitting ball.

Wait, you expected a 30+ year old Fed to beat a 25+ year old Nadal on the slowest ever AO?

30+ year old Nadal could not even beat 35+ year old Fed at the AO. Let that sink in.

 

[pame]

Hey, what's the record for Fed playing against Novak, Rafa AND Federer? While you're at it, what's the record for Federer playing against Federer? Must be mind-boggling? Heck, why stop there - what the record for Federer playing against 2 groundskeepers?

 

[FiReFTW]

Fascinanting fact..

Congratiulations OP, you would surely be a candidate to win the WORST THREAD in the past 10 years award, ive literally read it 5 times in a row and couldn't believe the st*pidity ive read.

Im going to reply to a st*pid post with my st*pid post.

Nadal doesn't have winning record vs Darcis/Pouille/Tsonga/Granollers combo at any GS.

Fascinanting fact..

Australian Open: 0-1
0-1 vs Tsonga

Roland Garross: 0-1
0-1 vs Granollers

Wimbledon: 0-1
0-1 vs Darcis

Us Open: 1-1
0-1 vs Pouille
1-0 vs Tsonga

 

[lud]

Thank you Lud, for this clear demonstration of Fed's inferior performance in GSs against his two main rivals.
Federistas will not be persuaded by any amount of factual evidence, but it needs to keep coming.
Bravo!

Actually, I'm Fed fan myself.

 

[aman92]

This is

Why do you say that? In Melbourne and Wimb 2008 he wasn't in a better age position. Nadal at 22 was already at his peak. It was actually Nadal who was in the better age position, because Fed wasn't peak anymore by then.

This is crap...Federer was still pretty much at his peak till 2009. Just because Nadal and Djokovic caught up with him doesn't mean he wasn't at his peak

 

[mike danny]

This is

This is crap...Federer was still pretty much at his peak till 2009. Just because Nadal and Djokovic caught up with him doesn't mean he wasn't at his peak

Djokovic didn't catch up to him until 2011.

Did you see the guys Federer lost to in 2008? Did you see that he lost 15 matches? No masters finals on HC, no masters titles, eliminated in the RR at the WTF (the only time it ever happened). So Roddick, Blake, Fish, Karlovic etc all caught up with him? If that's your definition of peak, then the 2 of us simply view it differently.

By the way, you do realize only 5 of his 15 losses came at the hands of Nadal and Djokovic? How do you explain the other 10? And Federer even had a winning record over Djokovic in 2008?

Might as well call Nadal peak in 2014.

 

[Get A Grip]

Actually, I'm Fed fan myself.

Then thank you regardless.
I don't think of all fed fans as Federistas, btw.
Facts about wins or losses are facts, anyone interested in GOAT debates should appreciate this info.
It's my opinion that Fed was not superior to Rafa or Djok once they came into their primes; (Rafa did this sooner than Djok, 2008 vs 2011) the H2H shows it and so do your slam stats. They each have had dominant or sub-dominant periods with that timeframe. It will change again before it's all through, certainly change more than once before the Big 3 have all called it quits.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Fascinanting fact..

Australian Open: 2-6( WOOO)
1-3 vs Djokovic
1-3 vs Nadal

Fascinating fact: he's five years older than Nadal and six years older than Djoker.

 

[aman92]

Djokovic didn't catch up to him until 2011.

Did you see the guys Federer lost to in 2008? Did you see that he lost 15 matches? No masters finals on HC, no masters titles, eliminated in the RR at the WTF (the only time it ever happened). So Roddick, Blake, Fish, Karlovic etc all caught up with him? If that's your definition of peak, then the 2 of us simply view it differently.

By the way, you do realize only 5 of his 15 losses came at the hands of Nadal and Djokovic? How do you explain the other 10? And Federer even had a winning record over Djokovic in 2008?

Might as well call Nadal peak in 2014.

Probably peak is a wrong term to use here but he was at his prime....obviously it's very hard for him to replicate his 2005-07 seasons but he was still reaching slam finals consistently. There's no way I am buying he was at a worse age than Nadal at 22

 

[aman92]

Fascinating fact: he's five years older than Nadal and six years older than Djoker.

Fascinating fact: He had an inferior record against Nadal even in his prime

 

[mike danny]

Probably peak is a wrong term to use here but he was at his prime....obviously it's very hard for him to replicate his 2005-07 seasons but he was still reaching slam finals consistently. There's no way I am buying he was at a worse age than Nadal at 22

Federer was prime in 2008 obviously.

But Nadal was peak. And that proved to be enough.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Against main rivals, Djok and Nadal.
Can't you read? Practice and you'll get better.
Fed did fine against Roddick, Hewitt, Bagdatis and very young Murray Nadal Djok. Yep 4 Wimb titles against Roddick. Tough competition!
Now i am so finished, very sick of this pointless argument with the cult, but like seeing new illuminating facts gathered, and your excuses and attempts to explain them away are pretty comical.

They just cant, for once, acknowledge that someone can do something better than him.
They never will.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Fascinating fact: He had an inferior record against Nadal even in his prime

"Fun" fact

 

[fedfan39]

Wait, you expected a 30+ year old Fed to beat a 25+ year old Nadal on the slowest ever AO?

30+ year old Nadal could not even beat 35+ year old Fed at the AO. Let that sink in.

35+ year Fed is a Godlike GOAT anomaly in the history of mankind. When we send Voyager III to the outer reaches of the Solar System to find the Vulcans, we will sure send them a clip of Fed's slams this year. That the 30+ Nadal cannot beat this Fed speaks more of Fed's absolute greatness than Nadal's diminished form. If anything, Nadal was going to sweep the spring hard court trifecta if Fed did not transcend. So, this can be done at the age 30 in today's world where modern medicine, focus and information technology means wonders to athletes in extending their careers.

Would I expect a 30 year old Fed to beat Nadal at whatever age in a hard court slam SF/Final? Heck yes. Even if you lower the bar, there is simply no excuse to losing the 2009 final. I already cut him a big slack for that despicable loss.

Fed simply should not be down 1-3 against Nadal at the AO. It might be a slowish hard court, but it certainly ain't red clay. And thank goodness it is 1-3 and not 0-4. This years final showed without a doubt that when Fed decides not to choke, he can completely and totally own Nadal at the AO (just see the third set and how he completely owned Nadal in the 5th after being a break down). Finally!! I predict if these two were to meet again in 2018 AO, Fed would finish the job in <= 4 sets.

 

[metsman]

Fdrer EXPOSED

 

[chut]

This thread is incredibly fascinanting !

I think this point has never been made before

 

[Antonio Puente]

Actually, I'm Fed fan myself.

My kind of Fed fan.

 

[Steve0904]

The USO sticks out because of the MPs lost in his matches to Djokovic, but other than that it's nothing too serious. Nobody who has any sense at all is really going to care if he doesn't play Nadal at the USO this year, but wins the title anyway (and the some goes in reverse). Beating Nadal is always a bonus of course, but beating him or somebody else in a final will produce the same end result.

 

[Prabhanjan]

At Wimbledon he has 8 slams compared to the duo's 5, and at USO 5 compared to the later's 4, and at AO he trails only by 2. This matters more than anything.

 

[Xavier G]

Ah, the old Nadal/Djokovic tag-team approach again.

Djokovic as a younger ATG in his prime SHOULD have been beating older past-prime Fed at the 2014, 2015 Wim and 2015 USO etc, which in fairness, he did. This would be expected.
What has happened this year has not been expected, however...

 

[KINGROGER]

Then thank you regardless.
I don't think of all fed fans as Federistas, btw.
Facts about wins or losses are facts, anyone interested in GOAT debates should appreciate this info.
It's my opinion that Fed was not superior to Rafa or Djok once they came into their primes; (Rafa did this sooner than Djok, 2008 vs 2011) the H2H shows it and so do your slam stats. They each have had dominant or sub-dominant periods with that timeframe. It will change again before it's all through, certainly change more than once before the Big 3 have all called it quits.

that's why peak 24-25 year old 11-12 Djokovic was only 3-2 up in slams to post prime 30-31 year old Fed (including losses at RG, Wimbledon and a very close shave at USO 2 sets and 2 MP down)

If he was so superior, he would've owned Fed 5-0 or 4-1.

Your analysis doesn't factor in Federer declining. Unless you think his level from 2004 to 2015 was the same lol.

 

[guitarra]

Who cares? Fortunately he has a record which matters unlike this one and which drives Fed haters mad and that is....

19>15>12

 

[NoleFam]

Well he has a winning record versus Nadal at Wimbledon so he does have one winning record against them at a Slam. He's even with Djokovic at RG and USO and I don't expect that RG record to change because I'm doubtful Federer will play RG again. So those are not bad. Djokovic has a 1-6 record versus Nadal at RG so no one expects Federer to have a winning record there. Having a losing record to Djokovic at Wimbledon does not look good because he is now the greatest on grass. Also, the AO record against them sucks. No way around it. Federer already has all the amazing records but yes the AO record will be thrown around a lot because he is a 5 time champion there. That was one thing that the Sampras fans often bragged about because Sampras had a winning record against virtually all his rivals. None of them could say they got the best of Sampras except maybe Hewitt who he was 4-5 against. Federer won't have the bragging rights like him.

 

[mike danny]

Well he has a winning record versus Nadal at Wimbledon so he does have one winning record against them at a Slam. He's even with Djokovic at RG and USO and I don't expect that RG record to change because I'm doubtful Federer will play RG again. So those are not bad. Djokovic has a 1-6 record versus Nadal at RG so no one expects Federer to have a winning record there. Having a losing record to Djokovic at Wimbledon does not look good because he is now the greatest on grass. Also, the AO record against them sucks. No way around it. Federer already has all the amazing records but yes the AO record will be thrown around a lot because he is a 5 time champion there. That was one thing that the Sampras fans often bragged about because Sampras had a winning record against virtually all his rivals. None of them could say they got the best of Sampras except maybe Hewitt who he was 4-5 against. Federer won't have the bragging rights like him.

Except Hewitt and Krajicek as well. And probably Safin too.

 

[NoleFam]

He drew even with Safin at 3-3 but yes he is 4-6 against Krajicek which I didn't realize. That seemed to have been his worst matchup with players from his era.

 

[mike danny]

He drew even with Safin at 3-3 but yes he is 4-6 against Krajicek which I didn't realize. That seemed to have been his worst matchup with players from his era.

Very fortunate Krajicek wasn't more consistent.

 

[NoleFam]

Very fortunate Krajicek wasn't more consistent.

But based on this head to head, he almost always got up for playing Sampras regardless of his relative form at the time.

 

[pame]

Fascinating fact: Federer has the best record against the entire field with 19 slams.

Fascinating fact: Djokovic?Nadal have an inferior record against the entire field compared to Federer's record. They only have 12 and 15 slams respectively.

 

[-NN-]

Fascinating fact: Federer has the best record against the entire field with 19 slams.

Fascinating fact: Djokovic?Nadal have an inferior record against the entire field compared to Federer's record. They only have 12 and 15 slams respectively.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the end.

 

[mike danny]

But based on this head to head, he almost always got up for playing Sampras regardless of his relative form at the time.

But he didn't meet Sampras often enough. Which helped Pete.

 

[Fedfan34]

Responses to these kinds of posts are what make me want to see Federer's records broken.

 

[-NN-]

The USO sticks out because of the MPs lost in his matches to Djokovic, but other than that it's nothing too serious. Nobody who has any sense at all is really going to care if he doesn't play Nadal at the USO this year, but wins the title anyway (and the some goes in reverse). Beating Nadal is always a bonus of course, but beating him or somebody else in a final will produce the same end result.

Well if Fed beats Nadal that's a loss for Nadal fans because it narrows the individual H2H but if Fed wins and Nadal loses in an earlier round that's a win for Nadal fans because he'd have lost to a worse player and had a worse tournament but kept the H2H intact.

 

[NoleFam]

But he didn't meet Sampras often enough. Which helped Pete.

True. Krajicek was clearly his Archilles heel.

 

[-NN-]

Fdrer EXPOSED

 

[pame]

Responses to these kinds of posts are what make me want to see Federer's records broken.

Weren't the last 2 Federer records broken? By Roger? Slam total 17, and slam total 18 ---

 

[metsman]

He drew even with Safin at 3-3 but yes he is 4-6 against Krajicek which I didn't realize. That seemed to have been his worst matchup with players from his era.

he was 4-5 against Stich and was down on Edberg until he got a few wins over old on the verge of retirement edberg. Those type of players could give him problems when pete wasn't fully locked in.

 

[Fedfan34]

Weren't the last 2 Federer records broken? By Roger? Slam total 17, and slam total 18 ---

I meant by someone else, preferably sureshs

 

[Steve0904]

Well if Fed beats Nadal that's a loss for Nadal fans because it narrows the individual H2H but if Fed wins and Nadal loses in an earlier round that's a win for Nadal fans because he'd have lost to a worse player and had a worse tournament but kept the H2H intact.

Sounds about right, yeah.

 

[NoleFam]

he was 4-5 against Stich and was down on Edberg until he got a few wins over old on the verge of retirement edberg. Those type of players could give him problems when pete wasn't fully locked in.

Well Stich got the best of him on clay a few times so 4-5 isn't really too bad because of that. Edberg gave him all kinds of problems early on because Edberg was #1 and the dominant ATG when Sampras started challenging for the top. It took a while for Sampras to turn that around in his favor and he did once he came into his own.

 

[Tennisanity]

It's what Federer said. Every generation has a younger generation pushing them out. Fed is not part of Nadal/Djokovic generation. For the Fed the next generation contained two all time greats in Nadal and Djoko so of course as he aged they pushed him out. On the other hand Djoko Nadal have 0 all-time greats in their next generation. Hence they have been very lucky to have overachieved.

 

[metsman]

Well Stich got the best of him on clay a few times so 4-5 isn't really too bad because of that. Edberg gave him all kinds of problems early on because Edberg was #1 and the dominant ATG when Sampras started challenging for the top. It took a while for Sampras to turn that around in his favor and he did once he came into his own.

eh, 1993 was part of Pete's peak and Edberg scored a couple wins over him at big events which Pete cared about. 1993 was also the last year Stefan was really relevant. So Pete never really turned it around against a half decent Edebrg. I loved watching Pete and Edberg play, some fantastic tennis, their 93 cincy match was outstanding.

In general, h2h is useless for Sampras because of the number of times he just didn't give a crap outside slams.

 

[mike danny]

Well Stich got the best of him on clay a few times so 4-5 isn't really too bad because of that. Edberg gave him all kinds of problems early on because Edberg was #1 and the dominant ATG when Sampras started challenging for the top. It took a while for Sampras to turn that around in his favor and he did once he came into his own.

Pete never beat Edberg in a slam though. That's why I LOL every time Edberg is mentioned as one of Pete's rivals.

 

[NoleFam]

eh, 1993 was part of Pete's peak and Edberg scored a couple wins over him at big events which Pete cared about. 1993 was also the last year Stefan was really relevant. So Pete never really turned it around against a half decent Edebrg. I loved watching Pete and Edberg play, some fantastic tennis, their 93 cincy match was outstanding.

In general, h2h is useless for Sampras because of the number of times he just didn't give a crap outside slams.

Well Edberg was still winning Slams in 1991 and 1992, and got to the AO final and Wimbledon SF in 1993. It was in 1993 when Sampras became dominant and started to get the better of Edberg starting in the fall of that year. He did have a couple of losses to Edberg in AO and Cincinnati, and Edberg was still a top player. Their Cincinnati match was great as well as some of other matchups. I don't think head to heads are useless. They tell a lot when looking at players' history. Sampras has to be penalized for not caring as much outside of Slams. He shouldn't get a pass when a guy like Lendl gave it his best everytime.

 

[NoleFam]

Pete never beat Edberg in a slam though. That's why I LOL every time Edberg is mentioned as one of Pete's rivals.

He didn't but he never met him in a Slam again after 1993 AO. Keep in mind that Edberg ended 1992 as #2 in the world. Edberg was one of his rivals because he had to challenge the dominant figure in the game at the time. It was a huge challenge for him taking on Edberg and you expect the younger ATG to take his losses before he figures it out.

 

[mike danny]

He didn't but he never met him in a Slam again after 1993 AO. Keep in mind that Edberg ended 1992 as #2 in the world. Edberg was one of his rivals because he had to challenge the dominant figure in the game at the time. It was a huge challenge for him taking on Edberg and you expect the younger ATG to take his losses before he figures it out.

I consider someone a rival a guy you face and beat in slams. Edberg wasn't his rival once Pete started his dominance.

 

[abmk]

Hold on y'all, Fed was in a better "age position" in melbourne 09 (27 vs 22), wimbledon 06-08 (24 vs 20), (25 vs 21) and (26 vs 22). All the RG's between 05 and 08 so that's another 4 and USO vs Nole till 09 so that's another 3. Not to forget the 2 AO matches against Nole till 08. That makes 13 from 27, as good as 50/50.

no to AO 09, no to wim 07 (nadal played his best tennis there)
no to AO 08 (mono affected)

RG - max you can give 05, 06

by 07 -- nadal was at his CC peak, without a shadow of doubt.

don't agree with USO 08/09 either with respect to djokovic. can give 2007.

 

[Surecatch]

Damn it, I thought the GOAT discussion was put to rest, and now this!

 

[abmk]

He drew even with Safin at 3-3 but yes he is 4-6 against Krajicek which I didn't realize. That seemed to have been his worst matchup with players from his era.

sampras was 3-4 vs safin
he was down 2-3 vs bruguera as well.
4-5 vs stich

 

[NoleFam]

I consider someone a rival a guy you face and beat in slams. Edberg wasn't his rival once Pete started his dominance.

Well he still is considered a rival, in my view, because it was Edberg who he had to take the top spot from. Sampras didn't beat him in a Slam but he also only played him twice in Slams, once when Edberg was the #1 player.

 

[NoleFam]

sampras was 3-4 vs safin
he was down 2-3 vs bruguera as well.
4-5 vs stich

The site I was using doesn't count meetings at the World Team Cup, an outdoor clay event, although it is counted in the head to head. Two of his losses to Bruguera were on clay so not a big surprise there.