Neptune
Hall of Fame
You have no shame at all, do you?
HC and grass slams:
Reaching QF
Nole 41, Rafa 31
Reaching SF
Nole 36, Rafa 23
Reaching F
Nole 29, Rafa 16
Federer in the 00s or Djokovic in the 10s - Who was the more dominant player?
- Thread starter Hitman
- Start date
HC and grass slams:
Reaching QF
Nole 41, Rafa 31
Reaching SF
Nole 36, Rafa 23
Reaching F
Nole 29, Rafa 16
Federer ran his own race and came out on top before he had retired. Djokoivc belongs to the gen after.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Also, it's hilarious how Djokovic's wins after Federer retired don't count but what Federer won before Djokovic started playing counts lol
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I won, because I quit while I was ahead.
duaneeo
Legend
Talk about 2010 to get a really good laugh.
The strength of 2013 is all about how strong the Big-4 were (as they were the only competition), and that year they weren't. We know how bad Federer was, but what grade would you seriously give 2013 Nole?
And if you want to believe Nadal would've beaten a non-sucking Federer at three of his best tournaments, more power to you.
2011 and 2012 were strong (tho the latter HUGELY overrated). 2013 was the true beginning of the Abnormal Era. The NextGens not making any progress early in the decade may be understandable, but they didn't get any better when reaching CurrentGen age.
Finally, some quantitative analysis. All these are public data, I just delineate the meanings behind them. All tournaments, slams+non slams,
Name W L w% T10w% Diff T10%
1. Djokovic 1095-216 83.5 69.5 14.0 28.2
2. Nadal 1070-221 82.9 64.6 18.3 22.3
3. Borg 654-140 82.4 71.1 11.3 32.8
4. Federer 1281-270 82.0 64.6 17.4 22.7
These 4 topped the list according to winning %. And it included all three Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, with Borg thrown in.
83.5 is Djokovic's overall winning %, 69.5 is winning % over players ranked in top 10. His differential is 14.0. Differential is the difference between the two percentages. You want it to be as close to zero as possible: the T10% as close to the overall % as possible. And Djokovic plays 28.2% of his matches against T10.
First thing to notice how similar Roger and Rafa's numbers are, in spite of Roger's best numbers are on HC and grass, and Rafa's best numbers are on clay. Their winning % is 83%, winning T10% is 65%, for a differential of 18. And 22% of their matches were against top 10 opponents.
But their numbers trail Djokovic considerably. His overall winning % is 83, approximately the same as theirs. But his winning % against the elite is 69, making the differential of 14, a full 4 points below their 18. Djokovic plays 28% against top 10, 6 percentages above their 22%. I think this is because Djokovic has tendency of going deeper toward the finals.
But Djokovic's numbers trail Borg. His overall % is 82%, but his T10% is 71, for a differential of only 11. And fully one third of Borg's opponents were among the top 10.
The key is Tw%, because all four have overall % of around 82-83%. But if your Tw% is higher, your percentage of playing top 10 is higher. Tw% is as follows: for Federer and Nadal, 65%; for Djokovic 70%; and for Borg, 71%.
Name W L w% T10w% Diff T10%
1. Djokovic 1095-216 83.5 69.5 14.0 28.2
2. Nadal 1070-221 82.9 64.6 18.3 22.3
3. Borg 654-140 82.4 71.1 11.3 32.8
4. Federer 1281-270 82.0 64.6 17.4 22.7
These 4 topped the list according to winning %. And it included all three Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, with Borg thrown in.
83.5 is Djokovic's overall winning %, 69.5 is winning % over players ranked in top 10. His differential is 14.0. Differential is the difference between the two percentages. You want it to be as close to zero as possible: the T10% as close to the overall % as possible. And Djokovic plays 28.2% of his matches against T10.
First thing to notice how similar Roger and Rafa's numbers are, in spite of Roger's best numbers are on HC and grass, and Rafa's best numbers are on clay. Their winning % is 83%, winning T10% is 65%, for a differential of 18. And 22% of their matches were against top 10 opponents.
But their numbers trail Djokovic considerably. His overall winning % is 83, approximately the same as theirs. But his winning % against the elite is 69, making the differential of 14, a full 4 points below their 18. Djokovic plays 28% against top 10, 6 percentages above their 22%. I think this is because Djokovic has tendency of going deeper toward the finals.
But Djokovic's numbers trail Borg. His overall % is 82%, but his T10% is 71, for a differential of only 11. And fully one third of Borg's opponents were among the top 10.
The key is Tw%, because all four have overall % of around 82-83%. But if your Tw% is higher, your percentage of playing top 10 is higher. Tw% is as follows: for Federer and Nadal, 65%; for Djokovic 70%; and for Borg, 71%.
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
2010 had weak AO, RG and WIM. USO was decent. Better than 2006 but yeah, I've never advocated for 2010 being a strong year like you try to do with all of Fed's peak years
Rubbish, Stan was incredible at AO13, decent at US13. Delpo was pretty good at WIM13 as well. 2013 Nole recorded > 20 top 10 wins... something Fed never did...
17 yr old Nadal beat PEAK Federer in Miami 2004, 18yr old Nadal had Miami 2005 robbed with bs line call and 19 yr old Nadal beat PEAK Federer at Dubai 2006... yeah I'd fancy his 2013 version's chances...
Absolute nonsense... like I said, Murray made the AO final and won Wimbledon... Nadal won RG and US, Nole won AO and made final of WIM and US and would have made RG final if he wasn't drawn in the same half as Nadal. Only Federer sucked of the big 4.
Stan had a strong year, breakout Stanimal performance at the AO in an all time classic and decent showing at the US open plus a great match with Gasquet at RG. Delpo had a pretty good year, finished top 5 in the rankings, marathon match against Djok at WIM... Berydch a lot of deep runs in Masters.
It was superior to anything from Fed's peak years.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
The top 10 in 2013 was much better than the top 10 in 2006. The “competition” in 06 was Fedal and that was it lol. 06 RAFA took it to the peakest version of Fed at Dubai. No reason to believe a better version of him on HC couldn’t do the same.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
+1. it's close but fed's run from 03-07 was insane, didn't he make 18-19 major finals or something at one point? plus consecutive weeks #1.
duaneeo
Legend
Uh, no.
lol at Nadal fans getting in a hissy fit. Simply admit 2013 was an anomaly because of the circumstances. Nadal won 4 big HC titles in 2013. Four, and he didn't play two of the tournaments! Surely the top HC players weren't so strong that year, as no way would Rafa win 4 big HC tournaments if they were.
That's reasoning of the absurd.
It’s not a direct comparison. Federer played his career and retired with the slam count. Doesn’t really matter how many challenger era slams Djokovic inflates his count with in his mid 30s.
duaneeo
Legend
You really think Nadal would win 4 big HC tournaments in a year with a strong Djokovic, Federer, and Murray? Heck, with a strong Djokovic by himself?
Good point. 2013 Federer who was on his last legs with the PS90 took peak HCdal to the brink at Cincy. Any half decent version like 09 or 12 would’ve ran through Nadal in 2.
I didn't think so, but one cannot say such things about one of the greatest players of all time.
After 2010, what were the chances of Djokovic winning 6 straight matches against Nadal, including on clay? All of us would've said 'no chance.'
Clay lover
Legend
I think it depends on the length of the span. Djokovic definitely did more and had higher lows than Federer throughout the whole decade and had better overall numbers.
But if we're just looking a shorter period for absolute dominance like 04-07 where Federer seemed almost a lock for everything not the FO Djokovic hasn't come close to that.
But if we're just looking a shorter period for absolute dominance like 04-07 where Federer seemed almost a lock for everything not the FO Djokovic hasn't come close to that.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Hissy fit? Lol, my guy we’re mocking you for your horrendously bad take. Even your fellow Fed fans will admit that 06 was a weak year. RAFA beat the best version of Fed in Dubai 06. He also beat a “non-sucky” version of him in the 09 AO F. Turns out he’s more than capable of beating the best players on HC. Who knew? Oh yeah, anyone who knows what they’re talking about lol. When he’s playing well he’s tough to beat on any surface. Hell, by your own logic with RAFA winning 2 big HC titles and Fed winning 2 big CC titles in 09 means it was a weak year. Why stop there? RAFA won three big HC titles in 05. I guess that year was even weaker
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
You've been on a decade long hissy fit... nothing but whining and complaining with bs excuses
Out of the 4 big HC titles he won, Cinci was the only one where he wasn't a former champion.
He made the US Open final 3/4 years from 2010-2013, he was always historically good at IW and Canada.
Coupled with the fact he was having a great season and playing well... it's not that much of a shock.
Neptune
Hall of Fame
Throughout Djokovic's initial peak from 2011 to 2016, Nadal only secured 4 HC big titles over the entire six-year period, all of which occurred within a span of 6 months. It's quite unusual, just an observation.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
He missed the 2nd half of 2012 up until after the AO in 2013 due to a knee injury. His prime ended at the beginning of 2014 when he injured his back in the AO F. He then had his 2 worst seasons in 2015-2016. So it’s not really unusual when you actually examine what happened in that timeframe.
abmk
Bionic Poster
say it was 2021, the era would be mocked even further.
Yes, djokovic was at his peak in first half and obviously those slams are not inflation.
But 2016 was just as weak as 2017 overall and weaker than year in this century prior except for maybe 2002.
Delpo only played well in 2-3 events in 2016.
fed AWOL for most part also.
nishi, dimi not doing well in a supposed to be prime year.
Murray being able to get to #1 only possible due to such a weak 2nd half ( no disrespect to his level/effort)
oh and 2006 ~ 2010 ~ 2015.
Lets not bring in 2016 into this. Its clearly worse than these 3.
well for domination has to include level in perspective
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
peak rafa got blasted off court at IW in 2012 by well past prime fed on outdoor HC.
and peak rafa was matched by well past prime fed in AO 12 imagine peak fed at AO (04/05/07)
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Mocked where? Here? Sure, that wouldn't surprise me one bit. Mocked out in the real world? Not a chance.
2016 cannot be considered weaker than 2017 onwards if one of the players everyone was competing against was a GOAT contender who was still very much in his prime at least until RG. The fact we still got a face off between Djokovic and Murray in the YEC says it all, Murray still had to go through Djokovic, who had won the last four YEC at that time. Was 2016 as strong as 2011 or 2012, no, but it is not equal to 2017, when we literally saw two guys come back from the dead to dominate. At least Murray was still in his 20s at the time.
My issue is not with putting 2016 on equal footing with 2006,2010 and 2015, it is with you grouping it with 2017, when you know that is not the actual truth. No way can a year that had a big 3 player still in his prime part of any inflation era....the guy is meant to be winning at that point, and Murray is from his generation, his direct peer, he was meant to be winning at that point also, because he too was in his prime.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Nadal didn't miss AO 2013 due to knee injury. He had a fever a week out and decided to skip it.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
It's the whole decade that is being discussed. No one is disputing that Federer had the highest concentrated period of dominance ever seen.
abmk
Bionic Poster
pretty sure even in real world people have noticed that players born in the 90s have won a grand total of 2 slams.
and yes, many even in real world would mock the era if djokovic at frickin 34 with that level won CYGS
Even if Djokovic was in his prime in RG 2016, we both know Nadal in RG 2017 was clearly better.
Even Fed in Wim 17 could be argued to be better than Murray in Wim 16 (you can argue both ways)
Same for Nadal in USO 17 vs Stan in USO 16 (you can argue both ways)
Only AO 16 vs AO 17 is clear cut in favour of AO 2016
YEC 2016 was better obviously
IW/Miami better in 2017 obviously
clay non-RG season edge to 2016
post USO non-YEC edge to 2017
etc. etc.
I didn't say 2016 was weaker than 2017. I'm saying it was similar.
Last edited:
Hitman
Bionic Poster
My friend, in the real world, people don't give a crap about all that stuff. Only the hardcore fans do, most lap up whatever is fed by the media and the sport in general. You and I make up a very very small community of tennis fans who break it down the way we do. The real world does not have the time nor do they care in the same way. And over time, people would care even less about all that, and as new people join the sport, they will see it for what it is, the gold standard.
Djokovic was in his prime ALL THE WAY FROM Jan to June. Anyone can catch fire for one tournament, that is the difference between Prime tennis and out of prime. Even Federer played fantastic in IW and Miami in 2017, but we know that was not his prime. You cannot compare that to the 18 month consistency that Djokovic brought.
You know full well that Djokovic's level was exactly the same from Paris 2014 to RG 2016, that 18 month period is legendary for a reason. You cannot compare it to a one off tournament performance, when he was doing it practically every freaking week.
You should not be adding in 2016 into the same era, is what I am saying. Your statement was about saying from 2016 onwards....that it where I disagree with you, as you straight out took what was a prime year for Djokovic and Murray and grouped it with a year where two guys in their 30s who had not won slams in 3 and 5 years respectively, as the same thing. Sorry, they are not.
You want to say Inflation era and weak achievements, then start from 2017 and count everything after that. Trying to take away from what Djokovic did in 2016, when he was in his prime and was meant to be winning, is something i cannot ever agree with. Weaker than previous years? OK, if you want. But no chance it should be grouped with 2017 and onwards.
As I've shown, all the Big3 have won about 82-83% of all matches. The big difference was that while Federer and Nadal won 65% of their matches against the Top 10, but Djokovic won 70% against T10. That was why Federer and Nadal played 22% of their matches against T10, while Djokovic played 28%.
Those are public data. You can all get them.
Those are public data. You can all get them.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Have to agree with this. Think about how many spectators watch this sport globally... good chance that 90% of that crowd wouldn't know if 90's born players have won 1 or 30 slams collectively...
2016 was a weak year. 2017 weaker, 2018 and 2019 weren't as bad but were still weak. 2020+ it fell off a cliff. Covid/post covid era has been the worst by far...
RS
Bionic Poster
I would settle with 2007-2013 > 2014-2019 > 2001-2006 > 2020-
the only time fed blew rafa of the court was in 2017 before that rafa leads 8:2 on outdoor hard including 3:0 at AO. Rafa is even better at the USO in my opinion would have loved to see that match up. Rafa would murder that swiss backhand until feds arm falls off.
abmk
Bionic Poster
nope. IW 12 fed blew nadal off court at IW in windy conditions.
nadal got immensely lucky with injury affected fed in 13-early where he won at IW (fed has won the other 2 times at IW - 12 and 17) and Cincy 13 (fed would win any other year), AO 14.
Miami 04 - fed was sick
we can exclude those.
excluding those, fed is like 5-4 or 6-4 vs nadal outdoors on HC with nadal having age/physical condition advantage for majority of the matches. If things were even stevens situation wise, fed would have the clear edge
lmao at the 2nd statement since fed is also better at the uso and prime fed would crush every version of nadal at USO except 10/13. and 04/06 fed clears USO 10 nadal easily. 05/07 fed would be close vs USO 10 nadal and would beat USO 13 nadal. etc.
it is 3-1 at AO overall with nadal getting lucky with 14 encounter..... 12 like I already said -> peak rafa was matched by well past prime fed in AO 12 imagine peak fed at AO (04/05/07)
AO 07 - best for fed
AO 04 - 2nd
AO 05 - 3rd
AO 09 is like 5th or 6th (after AO 10 and maybe AO 06)
AO 09 is best for nadal.
AO 09 was like prime(not peak) fed vs absolute peak nadal
now imagine AO 14 nadal (3rd best) or AO 17 nadal (4th best) vs absolute peak fed (04/05/07) - he'd get bodied, not make it near even like fed in AO 09.
Last edited:
Hitman
Bionic Poster
No one cares like we do. We are a very very small community. And over time, our voices will be lost, as really people mostly don't give a damn.
I don't mind if people call 2016 weaker than the preceding year. I just don't think it should be grouped with the years following it. To me, it is the final true year of Djokovic's prime that cannot be questioned.
throwing around with all kinds of excuses. I prefer to look at what really happened.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
I can tell you now the Aussie crowd mostly wouldn't have a clue... most of them are just there to have a good time at the tennis.
Wouldn't call 2016 his final true year, after RG he was cooked despite playing well in Canada and decent in YEC. That US Open run was a farce. First half, no doubt.
abmk
Bionic Poster
they may not break up, but atleast some of them notice the weakness, fall in level and all ...
I'm not taking anything away from Djokovic here as I said AO 2016 and RG 2016 are NOT inflation slams.
I also gave some instances of non-slam comparisons in my post in my edit ->
YEC 2016 was better obviously
IW/Miami better in 2017 obviously
clay non-RG season edge to 2016
post USO non-YEC edge to 2017
etc.
nadal was excellent in whole clay season 2017, not just RG (also did well in AO, Miami and then from USO-Beijing-Shanghai)
nadal won 2 clay masters, barca in 2017. only lost to thiem in final tournament before RG at Rome. (beat Thiem twice before that in Barca and Madrid)
Djokovic only won one CC masters in 2016. lost to vesely in 2R at MC and to Murray at Rome.
nadal's non RG CC season in 17 >> Djokovic's in 2016 by some distance
and fed was at a pretty high win% in 2017 as well playing well in many tournaments.
Federer was 54-5 for 2017 season.
Djokovic from 2016 start till Aug 1st 2016 was 51-4. (65-9 for whole season)
so what consistency difference are you talking about here?
djokovic obviously had higher level.
lets not hype murray in 2016 that much. he was meh in AO 2016, crumbled in RG 16 final after set 1 for no reason (even with a excellent semi) and bellgate vs Nishi. Wim is the one where he deserves credit. How is 17 federer or nadal that much worse than 16 Murray, if at all? I mean fed 2nd best slam of 2017 is better than Murray's 2nd best in RG 2016 so clearly. Ditto for Nadal USO 17 vs Murray RG 2016.
this is not like 12 Murray where he played well in 3 slams - AO/Wim/USO
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
can't deal with that nadal lucked out big time in their matches on outdoor HC?
also didn't like a retort to nonsense BS skewed nonsense?
Im absolutely fine
facts look different and im just sharing my opinion you have yours all good
RS
Bionic Poster
Good. There are people who think RG 17 Nadal loses to a prime Fedovic on clay.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Federer lucked out big time with Agassi...
34 yr old Andre almost beat PEAK FEDR at US Open...
FEDR never beat Andre before he turned 33...
US04 was top 1/2 for Fed... it was Andre's like 5th/6th
If Andre was ABSOLUTE PEAK, FEDR would get bodied not make it near even like Andre in US04.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Im absolutely fine
its the propaganda or one sided view that I had an issue with
you said " a teenage nadal was always able to match him on outdoor hard. Imagine peak rafa."
past prime federer matched peak rafa in AO 12 and beat him convincingly in IW 12. you chose to ignore that.
and of course ancient 35+ fed wiped the floor with past prime nadal in 17 (same age as fed in 12, LOL). you chose to ignore that
that federer had an injury affected year in 2013 is also a fact. you chose to ignore that.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Im absolutely fine
LMFAO you triggered him HARD
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I would not be the least bit surprised by that. It not just in Australia, in US and Europe it is pretty much the same thing. They come, have fun, watch their guy, and then it is all over, they go back to their lives. They don't care about all this other stuff. I'm telling you now, in a few years, no one is going to care about the slam race that took place either, people move on very quickly to the next big thing.
We are a very rare bunch.
Regarding 2016, the debate will rage on whether 2016 was his final year or not, but what cannot be argued is that 2016 was a prime year for him. He was meant to be on top at that time.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I'm not sure how you feel Murray won an inflation slam in 2016, when he was always top two for the title on grass, and was still in his prime. Murray being one of the kings of grass during that period, what he did at AO and RG doesn't impact that. We know he was 2-0 against Djokovic on grass.
And Wawrinka won a slam each of the last two years, the guy had a very late peak. I don't want to take that slam away from him, he earned it. Just because Djokovic didn't deserve to be in the final, doesn't mean Stan didn't show his worth there, as he beat Del Potro and Nishkori, who were coming in having both got a medal in the Olympics, and very much in their primes also.
Some noticing a fall means practically nothing in the big picture and you know this. Most people don't care one single bit.
Anyways, nothing more to say on this.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I didn't say Murray won an inflation slam in 16 either. he was playing at prime level there (and did face tsonga atleast)
neither did Wawa (Wawa actually had a more than decent draw and I rate DJoko in USO 16 a little higher than you do)
only inflation slam in those 2 years combined was Nadal's USO 17, IMO.
but the years as a whole were similarly weak, IMO. I have given sufficient evidence above. If you want to stop the convo on this, that's fine.
Last edited:
Well because its the truth he always matched fed on outdoor hard even beat him almost all the time whats propaganda about that ? I did not ignore the 2012 IW matchup good win for fed no one said anything against that. But in the meantime rafa won miami 04, dubai 06, AO 09, miami 11, AO 12, and nearly beat him in miami 05 meanwhile fed scores his IW 12 win doesnt look that convincing to me. Of course now you are going to throw around the fed was sick, old, injured , whatever excuse card. Also i didnt ignore 2017 as i said before with one of my first posts thats the only year fed crushed rafa on outdoor hard.
Similar threads
- Poll
