Federer is 10-21 versus Djokodal in grand slams

[Thriller]

In the match-up with Fed it totally is.

Because Nadal is a better player than Federer. Period. The only surfaces where Federer is clearly better than Nadal are grass and indoor hard. Other than that Nadal is either better or massively better than Federer. 24-16 tells it's own story and it has been one-way traffic from day 1 on both clay and hardcourts.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

The problem for Djokovic and Nadal is that they got stomped too many times before being able to lose to Federer in a final. Thread over.

In real life, they met Federer 17 and 14 times in slams, respectively.

 

[Thriller]

Brutal stat. No self respecting tennis historian will put Federer as the GOAT when he loses over and over to his main rivals. How can you be better than someone you lose to so much?

Check my sig. Even more damning is that these players cannot meet until the 2nd week when they have several matches under their belt and are in form. On the biggest occasions, on the biggest stages, Federer has been comprehensively dominated by his two closest rivals. If you are not unequivocally the best of your own time you cannot possibly be the GOAT.

1. Djokovic (NCYGS, only player to win each slam at least twice, YE No. 1s, Narrow lead in H2H versus main rival)
2. Nadal (tied on 20 slams but vastly superior H2H and especially in slams vis a vis Federer. Also has won at least two slams on each surface and Olympic Gold in singles. Vastly superior Masters record than Federer despite the hardcourt skew.
.....
...
..
.
3. Thirdwheelerer

 

[Thriller]

The problem for Djokovic and Nadal is that they got stomped too many times before being able to lose to Federer in a final. Thread over.

I love this crazy #fedlogic. The two guys who have dominated Federer in the H2H everywhere would have been more likely to lose to Federer if they had not got stomped before the final. Federer should thank his lucky stars that other players took Novak and Rafa out before the finals or his slam stats would be a lot worse.

 

[CCPass]

I love this crazy #fedlogic. The two guys who have dominated Federer in the H2H everywhere would have been more likely to lose to Federer if they had not got stomped before the final. Federer should thank his lucky stars that other players took Novak and Rafa out before the finals or his slam stats would be a lot worse.

All three make a similar number of slam finals of about 30-ish, so even that logic is flawed.

 

[Spencer Gore]

What hurts Federer the most are those matches against Nadal at Wimbledon 08 and the AO 09.

Someone like Federer shouldn't have lost both of those matches.

The mythical Federer in the minds of his fans wouldn't have lost them. The real one in the real world did, because Nadal was the better tennis player.

 

[ForehandRF]

What hurts Federer the most are those matches against Nadal at Wimbledon 08 and the AO 09.

Someone like Federer shouldn't have lost both of those matches.

He let Nadal enter his head, but Djokovic did the same thing, see 2013 USO especially

 

[Blahovic]

You can try to be fair to Federer and take out his post-30 results. Federer turned 30 after Wimbledon 2011.

At that point he had a 2-7 record against Nadal at slams and a 5-3 record against Djokovic at slams (including a win against baby Djokovic ranked outside the top 10 at AO 2007).

So he went 7-10 at the slams against young versions of Nadal and Djokovic in his 20s, when they were mostly pre-peak.

I'm honestly not saying this to denigrate Federer. Federer is and was amazing. But I think he had to do better in those matches to be the GOAT.

 

[ForehandRF]

The mythical Federer in the minds of his fans wouldn't have lost them. The real one in the real world did, because Nadal was the better tennis player.

How convenient.Was Federer supposed to win 6 Wimbledons in a row and all the slam finals on hardcourts ? You win some, you lose some.

 

[RS]

What about the 11-9 H2H Murray had over Federer at one point?

 

[ForehandRF]

You can try to be fair to Federer and take out his post-30 results. Federer turned 30 after Wimbledon 2011.

At that point he had a 2-7 record against Nadal at slams and a 5-3 record against Djokovic at slams (including a win against baby Djokovic ranked outside the top 10 at AO 2007).

So he went 7-10 at the slams against young versions of Nadal and Djokovic in his 20s, when they were mostly pre-peak.

I'm honestly not saying this to denigrate Federer. Federer is and was amazing. But I think he had to do better in those matches to be the GOAT.

Djokovic was 3-9 vs Nadal in slams at one point.H2H is not the only metric in the GOAT debate because there are more than 3 players in the field

 

[Jonesy]

Who would knew they would try the fusion.

 

[ForehandRF]

What about the 11-9 H2H Murray had over Federer at one point?

What about the 5-0 H2H Nalbandian had over Federer at one point ?

 

[ForehandCross]

The real one in the real world did, because Nadal was the better tennis player

Here You are wrong, purely tennis wise he was easily the better player as per the stats, especially in the first four sets of AO 2009 F.

I have had this discussion with someone here.

Federer was easily the better player in every stat. For first 4 sets He had won more points,(12 more which is statistically an indicator of one sided 4 setter match ) Federer had more break points, more return points and more winners. In fact by every statistical indicator , Federer should have finished the match in 4.

And he could have, given how many opportunities he had in set 3, (A total of 6 B.Ps, and many half chances).


In fact , Despite losing so meekly in fifth, Federer still won more return points and 1 more total points than Nadal. He had a better winner/UE ratio for the entire match,even after an abysmal 5 W to 15 UE in the 5th.




Purely tennis wise he was easily the better player. Especially in first 4. Statistically everything points to a regular 4 setter victory.

Also this was when Federer's service numbers were way lower than his usual , a mere 52% of first serve.



Credit to Nadal for fighting like a menace and discredit to Federer for absolutely bottling it.







But of course now Mr. Spencer Gore will dismiss stats , and act as if suddenly they don't matter.

 

[CCPass]

Here You are wrong, purely tennis wise he was easily the better player as per the stats, especially in the first four sets of AO 2009 F.

I have had this discussion with someone here.

Federer was easily the better player in every stat. For first 4 sets He had won more points,(12 more which is statistically an indicator of one sided 4 setter match ) Federer had more break points, more return points and more winners. In fact by every statistical indicator , Federer should have finished the match in 4.

And he could have, given how many opportunities he had in set 3, (A total of 6 B.Ps, and many half chances).


In fact , Despite losing so meekly in fifth, Federer still won more return points and 1 more total points than Nadal. He had a better winner/UE ratio for the entire match,even after an abysmal 5 W to 15 UE in the 5th.




Purely tennis wise he was easily the better player. Especially in first 4. Statistically everything points to a regular 4 setter victory.

Credit to Nadal for fighting like a menace and discredit to Federer for absolutely bottling it.


Also this was when Federer's service numbers were way lower than his usual , a mere 52% of first serve.




But of course now Mr. Spencer Gore will dismiss stats , and act as if suddenly they don't matter.

10-21

 

[FiReFTW]

h2h is a ridicilous and st*pid metric because it doesn't take into account daily form, injuries, matchup with the other person etc...

But lets see

Djokovic - Federer 27:23

Clay - 4:4
Hard - 20:18
Grass - 3:1



Nadal - Federer 24:16

Clay 11:2
Hard 9:11
Grass 1:3


So basically Federer is even with Djokovic pretty much across the board, grass one seems slightly more % skewed to Djokovic but honestly should have been 2:2 plus its such a small number of matches its very hard to judge

Against Nadal Federer has a horrible record on clay but is leading both in grass and hard courts.

All this despite the fact that federer is like 6-7 years OLDER than both, and both of them are supposedly one of the GOATs of tenins, some say even the GOATs of tennis alongside Roger.


The only thing clear from these stats is, if you are unbiased that is, that Federer if he was the same age is superior to Nadal apart from Clay, and probably has a small edge vs Djokovic on some courts and sme disadvantage in others.

 

[RS]

What about the 5-0 H2H Nalbandian had over Federer at one point ?

 

[ForehandCross]

10-21

Nice to see that entire "BUT NADAL WAS THE BETTER PLAYER AT AO 2009 SO FEDERER LOST"
Gets reduced to 10-21.
BTW, Nadal should have won 2007 WB .He was the better player .


I am signing off you people don't deserve this much effort.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Tbh, Federer trained for an entirely different playing style. He dominated as long as that kind of style was prevalent

What style was this?

 

[Diminic D'Coco]

I love bean tacos. bean tacos are the best. Tacos! who doesnt love tacos!

 

[CCPass]

Nice to see that entire "BUT NADAL WAS THE BETTER PLAYER AT AO 2009 SO FEDERER LOST"
Gets reduced to 10-21.
BTW, Nadal should have won 2007 WB .He was the better player .


I am signing off you people don't deserve this much effort.

No excuses.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Here You are wrong, purely tennis wise he was easily the better player as per the stats, especially in the first four sets of AO 2009 F.

I have had this discussion with someone here.

Federer was easily the better player in every stat. For first 4 sets He had won more points,(12 more which is statistically an indicator of one sided 4 setter match ) Federer had more break points, more return points and more winners. In fact by every statistical indicator , Federer should have finished the match in 4.

And he could have, given how many opportunities he had in set 3, (A total of 6 B.Ps, and many half chances).


In fact , Despite losing so meekly in fifth, Federer still won more return points and 1 more total points than Nadal. He had a better winner/UE ratio for the entire match,even after an abysmal 5 W to 15 UE in the 5th.




Purely tennis wise he was easily the better player. Especially in first 4. Statistically everything points to a regular 4 setter victory.

Also this was when Federer's service numbers were way lower than his usual , a mere 52% of first serve.



Credit to Nadal for fighting like a menace and discredit to Federer for absolutely bottling it.







But of course now Mr. Spencer Gore will dismiss stats , and act as if suddenly they don't matter.

Stats matter. Major tennis matches are played over five sets. It's embarrassing to see someone try and use partial stats from a tennis match to prove their guy should have won. That's not how tennis works. The genius and beauty of the tennis scoring system is that it's not how it works.

The most important stat of all -by far- is who won the match. And when Federer met Nadal or Djokovic in a slam the stat for match winning are damning for Roger.

 

[ForehandCross]

What style was this?

The transitional style of late 90s and early 2000s when the game started to move to baseline. The New Ball's generation were way more of baseliners than Sampras generation.

However Compared to Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Simon they still were very different in style, almost each player from that era was still more serve dependent and inclined towards aggression and winners than the efficiency and tactical approach of 2010s. Something in the middle of the 90s serve and net dominated and baseline dominated early 2010s extremes.

 

[Blahovic]

Djokovic was 3-9 vs Nadal in slams at one point.H2H is not the only metric in the GOAT debate because there are more than 3 players in the field

H2H is not the only metric in the GOAT debate, but it's an important one because the 3 best players ever played each other loads of times and because they are close in many other metrics.

If Federer had 30 slams and Djokovic/Nadal had 20, it wouldn't be as significant.

 

[ForehandRF]

H2H is not the only metric in the GOAT debate, but it's an important one because the 3 best players ever played each other loads of times and because they are close in many other metrics.

If Federer had 30 slams and Djokovic/Nadal had 20, it wouldn't be as significant.

Well if you consider Djokovic greater, especially now after winning the FO for the second time, then nothing wrong with that.I'll go by overall achievements and I think that Djokovic has a strong case for being the greatest

 

[ForehandCross]

Major tennis matches are played over five sets. It's embarrassing to see someone try and use partial stats from a tennis match to prove their guy should have won. That's not how tennis works. The genius and beauty of the tennis scoring system is that it's not how it works.

Lol. Federer leads in all stats even over the entire five sets.

The whole point of limiting to 4 sets was to underline that Federer had Nadal completely outclassed to the point of a regular 4 setter victory.

He out does Nadal in every stat in the overall chart. I am no Federer fan, but your point was that Nadal was the better "tennis" player , however as Stats show He wasn't, neither Overall nor for a 4/5th of the match.


Purely tennis wise Federer had Nadal beat. Just as Nadal had Federer beat in 2007 WB.


There's a thing called mentality. It's an important part of the sport. That's where Nadal had Federer beat properly. Purely tennis wise as numbers and actually watching the match would tell you, Federer had edged Nadal .


The guy who was throwing around names of auto bio graphies of tennis players should know how every tennis great talks of it at length in their book. Agassi in Open said without belief he couldn't beat the players he should have beaten (as he had played better than them) while he was on his slump.

Beleif and mentality determined a lot in big 3 rivalry.

In the case of 2009 AO, there's literally nothing you have in stats or in actual match play that indicates Federer lost because he was playing inferior tennis.



As I said, I am done debating this.

 

[Third Serve]

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here

 

[CCPass]

Lol. Federer leads in all stats even over the entire five sets.

The whole point of limiting to 4 sets was to underline that Federer had Nadal completely outclassed to the point of a regular 4 setter victory.

He out does Nadal in every stat in the overall chart. I am no Federer fan, but your point was that Nadal was the better "tennis" player , however as Stats show He wasn't, neither Overall nor for a 4/5th of the match.


Purely tennis wise Federer had Nadal beat. Just as Nadal had Federer beat in 2007 WB.


There's a thing called mentality. It's an important part of the sport. That's where Nadal had Federer beat properly. Purely tennis wise as numbers and actually watching the match would tell you, Federer had edged Nadal .


The guy who was throwing around names of auto bio graphies of tennis players should know how every tennis great talks of it at length in their book. Agassi in Open said without belief he couldn't beat the players he should have beaten (as he had played better than them) while he was on his slump.

Beleif and mentality determined a lot in big 3 rivalry.

In the case of 2009 AO, there's literally nothing you have in stats or in actual match play that indicates Federer lost because he was playing inferior tennis.



As I said, I am done debating this.

Classic case of winning the battle but losing the war.

 

[ForehandCross]

Classic case of winning the battle but losing the war.

2018 USO Timothy.

Like Federer his relatively lower 1st serve percentage and pure brain farts on some points lost him the match.

Unlike Federer, I think Thiem really learned from this and went on to become less of a ball basher and more sensitive to match situation.

Thiem even won 5 more points in total.

STATS OVERVIEW​	A%​	DF%​	1stIn​	1st%​	2nd%​	BPSaved​	RPW%​	Winners (FH/BH)​	UFE (FH/BH)​
Rafael Nadal​	1.8%​	2.4%​	65.9%​	67.3%​	56.1%​	7/13​	35.3%​	51 (38/10)​	49 (24/21)​
Dominic Thiem​	10.6%​	2.4%​	57.1%​	72.2%​	54.8%​	12/17​	36.5%​	71 (28/24)​	57 (28/25)​

 

[Spencer Gore]

The transitional style of late 90s and early 2000s when the game started to move to baseline. The New Ball's generation were way more of baseliners

However Compared to Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Simon they still were very different in style, almost each player from that era was still more serve dependent and inclined towards aggression and winners than the efficiency and tactical approach of 2010s. Something in the middle of the 90s serve and net dominated and baseline dominated early 2010s extremes.

Net Points Won

2004 Wimbledon Final
FEDERER
Total points won: 150
Total points played at the net: 46
Total points won at the net: 29

2021 Wimbledon Final
DJOKOVIC
Total Points won: 145
Total points played at the net: 48
Total points won at the net: 34

 

[Tennis Analyst]

A slam which favors Nadal btw.

You Fred fans never cease to amaze me. Fred's second best slam and Rafa's worst slam favors Rafa, what's next?

I think I should make a thread about Fred fans ridiculous claims, off top of my head

1. Fred got old between 26 and 27.
2. Baghdatis era was strong.
3. Australian Open favors Rafa over Fred.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Lol. Federer leads in all stats even over the entire five sets.

The whole point of limiting to 4 sets was to underline that Federer had Nadal completely outclassed to the point of a regular 4 setter victory.

He out does Nadal in every stat in the overall chart. I am no Federer fan, but your point was that Nadal was the better "tennis" player , however as Stats show He wasn't, neither Overall nor for a 4/5th of the match.


Purely tennis wise Federer had Nadal beat. Just as Nadal had Federer beat in 2007 WB.


There's a thing called mentality. It's an important part of the sport. That's where Nadal had Federer beat properly. Purely tennis wise as numbers and actually watching the match would tell you, Federer had edged Nadal .


The guy who was throwing around names of auto bio graphies of tennis players should know how every tennis great talks of it at length in their book. Agassi in Open said without belief he couldn't beat the players he should have beaten (as he had played better than them) while he was on his slump.

Beleif and mentality determined a lot in big 3 rivalry.

In the case of 2009 AO, there's literally nothing you have in stats or in actual match play that indicates Federer lost because he was playing inferior tennis.



As I said, I am done debating this.

Mentality is one of the most vital parts of being a great tennis player. That's why Djokovic and Nadal are better tennis players than Federer.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Mentality is one of the most vital parts of being a great tennis player. That's why Djokovic and Nadal are better tennis players than Federer.

Wimbledon 2019 is another great example. When it came to the big pressure moments, the 5-3 point in the tiebreak, the 40-15 match points, the BP Federer had at 10-10, the final set tiebreak; Djokovic was superior and played the better tennis.

Federer for the whole match was firing winners and aces with ease. Then when it came down the championship points, makes a bad around FH error then an insane - Roddick esque suicide net approach for an easy pass.

 

[duaneeo]

Also- Notably, Djokovic leads 11-6 in Grand Slam matches (5 finals and 11 semi-finals).

Also notably, Djokovic is 4-4 vs Stan Wawrinka in slam matches (0-2 in finals, 1-4 since 2014).

 

[Tennis Analyst]

Also notably, Djokovic is 4-4 vs Stan Wawrinka in slam matches (0-2 in finals, 1-4 since 2014).

It's not a losing h2h record like Fred's record against his rivals, Djokovic leads 19-6 overall unlike Fred who has also a losing record overall against both and most importantly nobody cares about Djokovic Wawinka rivalry. It's all about the Big three and among them Fred is clearly the inferior player. Accept it and move on.

 

[Fedeonic]

Also, notably, 35+ yo Federer leads 2-1 against Nadal in Grand Slam matches (1-0 in GS finals).

 

[Russeljones]

I love this crazy #fedlogic. The two guys who have dominated Federer in the H2H everywhere would have been more likely to lose to Federer if they had not got stomped before the final. Federer should thank his lucky stars that other players took Novak and Rafa out before the finals or his slam stats would be a lot worse.

Can you try again, this time not reinforcing my point? I am guessing here, but I think you don't want to be doing that.

In real life, they met Federer 17 and 14 times in slams, respectively.

Same real life they couldn't meet many more times because both were not fit to make the match vs Federer.

 

[bnjkn]

He's a weak era fraud. What did you expect? Those 10 wins should be asterisked too.

 

[CCPass]

Can you try again, this time not reinforcing my point? I am guessing here, but I think you don't want to be doing that.


Same real life they couldn't meet many more times because both were not fit to make the match vs Federer.

Federer only makes 1 more slam final than Djokovic and 3 more than Nadal, but loses 10-21 in their slam matchups. There’s no mathematical justification behind your claim.

 

[duaneeo]

It's not a losing h2h record like Fred's record against his rivals, Djokovic leads 19-6 overall unlike Fred who has also a losing record overall against both and most importantly nobody cares about Djokovic Wawinka rivalry.

Hey, I totally understand why you don't care about Nole's rivalry with one of his contemporaries, and care more about his rivalry with a player of a different era.

But since it's all about the Big-3, other than an occasional fluke, Fedal loses to no one other than a Big-3 in slam finals:

Losses in slam finals against non-Big-3 opponents:

Federer: 1
Nadal: 1
Djokovic: 4

 

[Antonio Puente]

Also, notably, 35+ yo Federer leads 2-1 against Nadal in Grand Slam matches (1-0 in GS finals).

Of course, prior to that, Fed failed to beat Nadal in a slam for a decade, but he will always have the magical 2 out of 3, and thankfully he cashed in the 2019 Wimbledon win vs. Nadal for some hardware. Would have been a shame to waste it.

 

[Backspin1183]

Yh he still in top 3 with Laver > Nole > Fed.

Why do you have Laver ahead of Nole?

Traitor!!

 

[xFedal]

Net Points Won

2004 Wimbledon Final
FEDERER
Total points won: 150
Total points played at the net: 46
Total points won at the net: 29

2021 Wimbledon Final
DJOKOVIC
Total Points won: 145
Total points played at the net: 48
Total points won at the net: 34

I was lost for words on seeing Nole display the finest serve and volley seen in years. I am hoping for more of that .

 

[xFedal]

Why do you have Laver ahead of Nole?

Traitor!!

He has a little more time at no.1 soon Nole shall overcome that.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

Federer is popular. So numbers don't matter

/Thread

 

[mike danny]

Haha what? The dude has 6 titles.

Only one on the slow plexicushion, but nice try.

That surface doesn't favor Federer, especially the super slow 2012 surface.

 

[Vanilla Slice]

This is mainly the sole reason Federer will not finish with the most slams all time. He had many opportunities to directly increase his slam count while stopping Djokodal.

 

[mike danny]

Delpo 2009 begs to differ

Begs to differ what? He played a terrible match in 2009.

 

[Noleberic123]

Only one on the slow plexicushion, but nice try.

That surface doesn't favor Federer, especially the super slow 2012 surface.

Federer had his chances in 09

 

[mike danny]

Federer had his chances in 09

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that this surface doesn't favor his game.

But yeah, this one was winnable in spite of that.