Federer's competition from 2003-2008

[Mayonnaise]

A lot of people like to diminish Federer's achievements by dismissing his competition from 2003-2008 (where he won 13 of his Slams) saying he had to play against weak players, while at the same time characterizing Sampras's competition from 1993-1998 (where he won 10 of his Slams) as strong. Let us examine that for a moment:


Who Sampras had to face from 1993-1998 at Slams:
Andre Agassi (who won 2 Slams during this period) 3 times
Boris Becker (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times
Jim Courier (who won 1 Slam during this period) 6 times

Those are the only real all-time greats he played. Oh, he also played Edberg once and lost. What does that tell you? His biggest rival during his prime was not Agassi, who he played just 3 times when he wasn't off doing meth. Sampras's biggest Slam rival during his prime was Jim Courier. Now let that and its implications sink in.



Who Federer had to face from 2003-2008 at Slams:
Rafael Nadal (who won 5 Slams during this period) 7 times
Novak Djokovic (who won 1 Slam during this period) 4 times
Andre Agassi (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times

These are the all-time greats Federer had to face during his prime years, where he won most of his Slams. And attentive readers will notice that Federer played Sampras's supposed "biggest rival" (Agassi) at Slams during his prime years as many times as Sampras has! What's more, Federer had to deal with his main Slam rival, Nadal, more times than Sampras had to deal with his, Courier. Not to mention Djokovic, who he also faced more times than Sampras faced Becker.



Now that we have seen reality, and broken some of the rose-tinted eyewear of Sampras fans, who do you think had the stronger competition during their prime years? Sampras or Federer?

 

[firepanda]

Didn't Federer win only 1 slam in 2008? Why are you including that year? If I remember correctly, he faced Nadal and Djokovic quite a few times that year as well.

You aren't manipulating the statistics are you? That would be bad.

For those who are curious, he played Nadal and Djokovic twice each at slams in 2008.
Who Federer had to face from 2003-2007 at Slams:
Rafael Nadal (who won 5 Slams during this period) 5 times
Novak Djokovic (who won 1 Slam during this period) 2 times
Andre Agassi (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times

 

[Mayonnaise]

Didn't Federer win only 1 slam in 2008? Why are you including that year? If I remember correctly, he faced Nadal and Djokovic quite a few times that year as well.

You aren't manipulating the statistics are you? That would be bad.

Sampras won just one Slam in 1996 and 1998, which I also included. Sampras's prime years were clearly 1993-1998 to anybody that watched Tennis back then, and I took the corresponding 2003-2008 for Federer.

 

[firepanda]

Sampras won just one Slam in 1996 and 1998, which I also included. Sampras's prime years were clearly 1993-1998 to anybody that watched Tennis back then, and I took the corresponding 2003-2008 for Federer.

Aren't we interested in the years they were winning though? That way we can establish that they won against decent competition. That's my issue with this method. You're assuming that the player wins everything. Also, I can't speak for Sampras, since I wasn't watching tennis when he was playing.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Aren't we interested in the years they were winning though? That way we can establish that they won against decent competition. That's my issue with this method. You're assuming that the player wins everything. Also, I can't speak for Sampras, since I wasn't watching tennis when he was playing.

I chose 2003-2008 for Federer because Sampras's prime years were 1993-1998. What's so difficult to understand about this?

 

[BallsforTennis]

Aren't we interested in the years they were winning though? That way we can establish that they won against decent competition. That's my issue with this method. You're assuming that the player wins everything. Also, I can't speak for Sampras, since I wasn't watching tennis when he was playing.

I like this guy. You see the crookedness of his ways.

He puts his mayonnaise dressing on it and it's suddenly sounding a lot different.

It's like when a writer of a tabloid makes you interpret something from one angle, by only letting you into one bias side of the argument. Telling you how to use the information, rather than presenting the information and letting you decide for yourself.

The stats cherry picking. Choosing the stats that only benefit their side of the argument.

 

[Mayonnaise]

I like this guy. You see the crookedness of his ways.

He puts his mayonnaise dressing on it and it's suddenly sounding a lot different.

It's like when a writer of a tabloid makes you interpret something from one angle, by only letting you into one bias side of the argument.

Says the guy that thinks the grass at Wimbledon was sped up in 2003 :lol:

 

[BallsforTennis]

Says the guy that thinks the grass at Wimbledon was sped up in 2003 :lol:

Wimbledon was sped up in 1997 and then again between 2002 and 2003.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Didn't Federer win only 1 slam in 2008? Why are you including that year? If I remember correctly, he faced Nadal and Djokovic quite a few times that year as well.

You aren't manipulating the statistics are you? That would be bad.

For those who are curious, he played Nadal and Djokovic twice each at slams in 2008.
Who Federer had to face from 2003-2007 at Slams:
Rafael Nadal (who won 5 Slams during this period) 5 times
Novak Djokovic (who won 1 Slam during this period) 2 times
Andre Agassi (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times

Lol its even worse. He includes Agassi into this picture when Agassi won his last slam at AO 2003, before Federer won his first slam at Wimb 03. Also Djokovic won 0 slams between 03-07 and Nadal won only 3.

The real list is:
Federer from Wimb 03 - USO 07 (when he won 12 slams):
Nadal (who won 3 Slams during this period) 5 times
Djokovic (0 slams) 2 times
Agassi (0 slams) 3 times

Add to that in his 05 meetings with (35-year old) Agassi, Agassi was ranked outside of the world's top 5 and (19-year old) Djokovic wasn't even in the top 12 when they faced at AO 07. Fed lost 1 set to these guys in those combined 3 matches.

So corpse level Agassi and not just pre-prime or pre-big 4 or pre-slam winner Nole, but teenager pre-masters 1000 winner, pre-top 10 ranking nole, which tells us nothing.

so the REAL list is:

Federer from Wimb 03 - USO 07 (when he won 12 slams):
Nadal (who won 3 slams during this period) 5 times (2-3)
Djokovic (0 slams) 1 time (beat at USO 07)
Agassi (0 slams) 1 time (beat at USO 04)

That being said, Sampras' wins were pretty weaksauce too especially 97-99. In terms of difficulty of winning slams:

Djokovic>Nadal>>>>>>>Sampras>Federer

 

[BallsforTennis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SmrwGg1gE

Hewitt wouldn't have won on post 2002 grass, get outta here!

Got obliterated by big Ivo too.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Wimbledon was sped up in 1997 and then again between 2002 and 2003.

Congrats! Nobody will ever take you seriously again! :lol:

 

[Mayonnaise]

Lol its even worse. He includes Agassi into this picture when Agassi won his last slam at AO 2003, before Federer won his first slam at Wimb 03. Also Djokovic won 0 slams between 03-07 and Nadal won only 3.

I also included Courier and his 1 Slam. Look up when he won his. And it doesn't take a genius to know that it's unfair to consider 2003-2007 for Federer while considering 1993-1998 for Sampras. Maybe subtract those numbers and see what the difference is?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SmrwGg1gE

Hewitt wouldn't have won on post 2002 grass, get outta here!

Got obliterated by big Ivo too.

Why not, muppet? Because you said so? He's made several deep runs since 2002 at Wimbledon, losing only to Federer. No shame in that right? Wrong, because according to "BFT" losing to arguably the greatest man to play on grass in the open era is a mark against your name.

 

[firepanda]

I chose 2003-2008 for Federer because Sampras's prime years were 1993-1998. What's so difficult to understand about this?

The point that 'weak era' advocates are making is that Federer benefitted from a weak era. He can only benefit if he wins the tournament, right? Otherwise it doesn't matter whether his opponent is Rafovak Nadalovic or a tadpole: he's lost. That's why I prefer methods that look exclusively at the slams he's won, since that doesn't require you to be aware of this assumption.

Looking at his 'dominant era' (since I agree with you; his prime extends to 2008), you're assuming he's winning all the slams, which he basically was. However, you have to be careful specifying this, since you might include matches that skew the data.

Case in point: in 2008, he played Nadal and Djokovic in slams 4 times and lost to them 3 times. That's not very dominant. You could draw whatever conclusions you want about the competition that year, but it doesn't matter since Federer wasn't really benefitting from it. His competition could be fantastic, but it only affects one slam so no Fed-hater will really care. See the point in the first paragraph.

Similar point on clay. He was losing to Nadal and so sure, his competition was strong, but he lost so it doesn't affect his slams.

Personally, I'd say Federer's 'dominant period(s)' were 2004-2007 off clay. He won a whopping 11 slams in this time.

Who Federer had to face from 2003-2007 at Slams off-clay:
Rafael Nadal (who won 0 Slams off-clay during this period) 2 times
Novak Djokovic (who won 0 Slams during this period) 2 times
Andre Agassi (who won 0 Slams during this period) 3 times

I'm sure if you do the same thing for Sampras, the numbers won't look quite so small in comparison, but it's a bit different to what you had originally.

There's so the issue, as several posters above me have noted, that Djokovic made the top 10 in 2007. Agassi won his last slam before this period. Nadal won no slams off-clay in this period, although he was still a threat to Federer of course.

 

[BallsforTennis]

Congrats! Nobody will ever take you seriously again! :lol:

Considering I'm a decent Sampras fan; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVET-_lYlII I think I would know.

There is a noticable different with the way the ball leaves the grass when Sampras played in the late 90s, than compared to the mid 90s and earlier.

They sped the grass up twice, 97/98-ish and then once again 2002/2003ish.

...and they did so because of this ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-uBYbcINJQ

Can you see the noticeable difference, between the ball skidding in 94 and in 99?

After the 94 final they had to make serious deliberations. Everyone was calling Sampras boring and then realised it wasn't him who was boring, more the grass surface itself which was allowing for his matches, to be boring!!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Considering I'm a decent Sampras fan; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVET-_lYlII I think I would know.

There is a noticable different with the way the ball leaves the grass when Sampras played in the late 90s, than compared to the mid 90s and earlier.

They sped the grass up twice, 97/98-ish and then once again 2002/2003ish.

...and they did so because of this ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-uBYbcINJQ

Can you see the noticeable difference, between the ball skidding in 94 and in 99?

After the 94 final they had to make serious deliberations. Everyone was calling Sampras boring and then realised it wasn't him who was boring, more the grass surface itself.

Don't make me laugh.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Djokovic>Nadal>>>>>>>Sampras>Federer

Since Djokovic won his first Slam, Federer won 5 Slams. If the Wimbledon final had gone his way, he'd have won more Slams since AO 2008 than Djokovic has.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The point that 'weak era' advocates are making is that Federer benefitted from a weak era. He can only benefit if he wins the tournament, right? Otherwise it doesn't matter whether his opponent is Rafovak Nadalovic or a tadpole: he's lost. That's why I prefer methods that look exclusively at the slams he's won, since that doesn't require you to be aware of this assumption.

Looking at his 'dominant era' (since I agree with you; his prime extends to 2008), you're assuming he's winning all the slams, which he basically was. However, you have to be careful specifying this, since you might include matches that skew the data.

Case in point: in 2008, he played Nadal and Djokovic in slams 4 times and lost to them 3 times. That's not very dominant. You could draw whatever conclusions you want about the competition that year, but it doesn't matter since Federer wasn't really benefitting from it. His competition could be fantastic, but it only affects one slam so no Fed-hater will really care. See the point in the first paragraph.

Similar point on clay. He was losing to Nadal and so sure, his competition was strong, but he lost so it doesn't affect his slams.

Personally, I'd say Federer's 'dominant period(s)' were 2004-2007 off clay. He won a whopping 11 slams in this time.

Who Federer had to face from 2003-2007 at Slams off-clay:
Rafael Nadal (who won 0 Slams off-clay during this period) 2 times
Novak Djokovic (who won 0 Slams during this period) 2 times
Andre Agassi (who won 0 Slams during this period) 3 times

I'm sure if you do the same thing for Sampras, the numbers won't look quite so small in comparison, but it's a bit different to what you had originally.

There's so the issue, as several posters above me have noted, that Djokovic made the top 10 in 2007. Agassi won his last slam before this period. Nadal won no slams off-clay in this period, although he was still a threat to Federer of course.

There's a difference between prime and peak. Federer was certainly still in his prime in 2008-2010, as was Sampras in 1998-2000. BFT and other closet fanboys of Djokovic cherry pick their own stats to try and match others.

 

[Mayonnaise]

The point that 'weak era' advocates are making is that Federer benefitted from a weak era. He can only benefit if he wins the tournament, right? Otherwise it doesn't matter whether his opponent is Rafovak Nadalovic or a tadpole: he's lost. That's why I prefer methods that look exclusively at the slams he's won, since that doesn't require you to be aware of this assumption.

Looking at his 'dominant era' (since I agree with you; his prime extends to 2008), you're assuming he's winning all the slams, which he basically was. However, you have to be careful specifying this, since you might include matches that skew the data.

Case in point: in 2008, he played Nadal and Djokovic in slams 4 times and lost to them 3 times. That's not very dominant. You could draw whatever conclusions you want about the competition that year, but it doesn't matter since Federer wasn't really benefitting from it. His competition could be fantastic, but it only affects one slam so no Fed-hater will really care. See the point in the first paragraph.

Similar point on clay. He was losing to Nadal and so sure, his competition was strong, but he lost so it doesn't affect his slams.

Personally, I'd say Federer's 'dominant period(s)' were 2004-2007 off clay. He won a whopping 11 slams in this time.

Who Federer had to face from 2003-2007 at Slams off-clay:
Rafael Nadal (who won 0 Slams off-clay during this period) 2 times
Novak Djokovic (who won 0 Slams during this period) 2 times
Andre Agassi (who won 0 Slams during this period) 3 times

I'm sure if you do the same thing for Sampras, the numbers won't look quite so small in comparison, but it's a bit different to what you had originally.

There's so the issue, as several posters above me have noted, that Djokovic made the top 10 in 2007. Agassi won his last slam before this period. Nadal won no slams off-clay in this period, although he was still a threat to Federer of course.

Maybe you should just choose 2003-2004 for Federer? That might suit your rose-tints better :lol: I'd rather be consistent and choose 6 year stretches for both players.

 

[BallsforTennis]

Since Djokovic won his first Slam, Federer won 5 Slams. If the Wimbledon final had gone his way, he'd have won more Slams since AO 2008 than Djokovic has.

For me Federer is the GOAT, however, if you wanna run by the pedantic line of dealing in only facts and figures when presenting an argument... please be consistent and stick by that, rather than all of a sudden, now and here mention an 'if that person hadn't coughed in the crowd' piece of speech. It's double standard. Cheers.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Considering I'm a decent Sampras fan; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVET-_lYlII I think I would know.

There is a noticable different with the way the ball leaves the grass when Sampras played in the late 90s, than compared to the mid 90s and earlier.

They sped the grass up twice, 97/98-ish and then once again 2002/2003ish.

...and they did so because of this ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-uBYbcINJQ

Can you see the noticeable difference, between the ball skidding in 94 and in 99?

After the 94 final they had to make serious deliberations. Everyone was calling Sampras boring and then realised it wasn't him who was boring, more the grass surface itself which was allowing for his matches, to be boring!!

:lol: Quit it. Read up some on Wimbledon and the change in 2001.

 

[BallsforTennis]

:lol: Quit it. Read up some on Wimbledon and the change in 2001.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

 

[Deleted member 307496]

:lol: Quit it. Read up some on Wimbledon and the change in 2001.

BFT is so delusional he makes up facts in his head and believes them to be true, like Hewitt not facing top 10 competition for his YECs (even though he's beaten a World No. 6 Federer in one of them and several other tough players).

 

[Mayonnaise]

For me Federer is the GOAT, however, if you wanna run by the pedantic line of dealing in only facts and figures when presenting an argument... please be consistent and stick by that, rather than all of a sudden, now and here mention a 'if that person hadn't coughed in the crowd' piece of speech. It's double standard. Cheers.

What I said is fact. If the Wimbledon final had gone Federer's way, he'd have won more Slams than Djokovic since AO 2008. If that's too complicated for you to understand, that's fine. To make it easy for you, I'll say:
Since Djokovic won his first Slam, Federer has won 5 and Djokovic has won 6.

 

[firepanda]

So I had a look at Sampras' career. I'm not familiar with it though so I'd appreciation any correction. His slam distribution is a little more spread out than Federer's. I'd say 1993-1997 was his time spent winning slams, with a total of 9. Off-clay of course, since the poor fellow was inept on the dirt.

Who Sampras had to face from 1993-1997 at Slams off-clay:
Andre Agassi (who won 2 Slams during this period) 3 times
Boris Becker (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times
Jim Courier (who won 1 Slam during this period) 4 times

Impressed to see less number-magic here. Jim met Sampras twice at RG which didn't count. Basically nothing of interest happened in 1998 though, in terms of competition. The numbers don't change.

It's also worth noting Sampras' slams are right tailed. He keeps on winning into his twilight years. Agassi's career intersects him during this period. I believe they met something like 4 times in slams after 1997.

 

[Mayonnaise]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

One of those serves could have a different spin, one of them could've been an odd bounce, I mean, really? Take two serves as definite proof? :lol:

Please, go and read up

 

[firepanda]

Maybe you should just choose 2003-2004 for Federer? That might suit your rose-tints better :lol: I'd rather be consistent and choose 6 year stretches for both players.

Why? He played his very best tennis after 2004 actually. He cooled down a bit and started playing a bit more tactically.

 

[Mayonnaise]

So I had a look at Sampras' career. I'm not familiar with it though so I'd appreciation any correction. His slam distribution is a little more spread out than Federer's. I'd say 1993-1997 was his time spent winning slams, with a total of 9. Off-clay of course, since the poor fellow was inept on the dirt.

Who Sampras had to face from 1993-1997 at Slams off-clay:
Andre Agassi (who won 2 Slams during this period) 3 times
Boris Becker (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times
Jim Courier (who won 1 Slam during this period) 4 times

Impressed to see less number-magic here. Jim met Sampras twice at RG which didn't count. Basically nothing of interest happened in 1998 though, in terms of competition. The numbers don't change.

It's also worth noting Sampras' slams are right tailed. He keeps on winning into his twilight years. Agassi's career intersects him during this period. I believe they met something like 4 times in slams after 1997.

Sampras's Slams are right-tailed and he keeps winning into his twilight years?
1998: Same number as Federer in 2008 (1)
1999: Less than Federer in 2009 (1)
2000: Same as Federer in 2010 (1)
2001: Same as Federer in 2011 (0)
2002: Same as Federer in 2012 (1)

The fact is, he isn't right-tailed anymore than Federer. It's just that Federer fights on, even past his twilight years. Some credit here, please. It's like people congratulating Sampras for winning all Wimbledon finals and saying Federe sucks for losing two.

 

[firepanda]

So, a side by side comparison.

Sampras (9 slams over 5 years)
Andre Agassi (who won 2 Slams during this period) 3 times
Boris Becker (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times
Jim Courier (who won 1 Slam during this period) 4 times

Federer (11 slams over 4 years)
Rafael Nadal (who won 0 Slams off-clay during this period) 2 times
Novak Djokovic (who won 0 Slams during this period) 2 times
Andre Agassi (who won 0 Slams during this period) 3 times

Incidentally, I really like this thread. It really shows how you can manipulate statistics to say what you want. The big corporation's PR departments could take a lesson from you, Mayo.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Why? He played his very best tennis after 2004 actually. He cooled down a bit and started playing a bit more tactically.

1993-1998
2003-2008

That's consistent.


1993-1998
2003-2007

That's inconsistent.

 

[firepanda]

Sampras's Slams are right-tailed and he keeps winning into his twilight years?
1998: Same number as Federer in 2008 (1)
1999: Less than Federer in 2009 (1)
2000: Same as Federer in 2010 (1)
2001: Same as Federer in 2011 (0)
2002: Same as Federer in 2012 (1)

The fact is, he isn't right-tailed anymore than Federer. It's just that Federer fights on, even past his twilight years. Some credit here, please. It's like people congratulating Sampras for winning all Wimbledon finals and saying Federe sucks for losing two.

I agree. Federer's career is right tailed and looks like it's going to be a very long one indeed. Kudos to him for still playing a game he enjoys. I also think he hasn't declined as much as people like to portray. (Reports of his decline have been greatly exaggerated.)

 

[Deleted member 307496]

1993-1998
2003-2008

That's consistent.


1993-1998
2003-2007

That's inconsistent.

Or even;

2003-2010 for Federer.


1993-2000 for Sampras.


But Sampras fans don't want it that way.

 

[Mayonnaise]

So, a side by side comparison.

Sampras (9 slams over 5 years)
Andre Agassi (who won 2 Slams during this period) 3 times
Boris Becker (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times
Jim Courier (who won 1 Slam during this period) 4 times

Federer (11 slams over 4 years)
Rafael Nadal (who won 0 Slams off-clay during this period) 2 times
Novak Djokovic (who won 0 Slams during this period) 2 times
Andre Agassi (who won 0 Slams during this period) 3 times

Incidentally, I really like this thread. It really shows how you can manipulate statistics to say what you want. The big corporation's PR departments could take a lesson from you, Mayo.

Incidentally, I realized I'm talking to someone that doesn't know what consistency is. I wouldn't suggest anybody take any lessons from you

When you consider 6 years for Sampras, you consider 6 years for Federer. That's consistency, which is a word whose meaning is lost on you

 

[firepanda]

1993-1998
2003-2008

That's consistent.


1993-1997
2004-2007

That's inconsistent.

We can do basic maths. If Sampras has a longer peak than Federer (by a whopping one year), we'll take that into account. Divide by five and multiply by four. We'll end up with a messy decimal, but I'll go ahead and assume most of us have done year 4 maths.

 

[D.Nalby12]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SmrwGg1gE

Hewitt wouldn't have won on post 2002 grass, get outta here!

Got obliterated by big Ivo too.

Same like Murray got obliterated by Baby Dimitrov ?


Shame you can't stop bashing Hewitt, get a life.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Or even;

2003-2010 for Federer.


1993-2000 for Sampras.


But Sampras fans don't want it that way.

True. Can you imagine if I compared Federer's competition from 2009-2014 and compare it to Sampras's from 1999-2002? :lol:

I'm being consistent by choosing the same number of years. The rose-tints would rather cherry-pick

 

[BallsforTennis]

Incidentally, I really like this thread. It really shows how you can manipulate statistics to say what you want. The big corporation's PR departments could take a lesson from you, Mayo.

I told you this, didn't I? :mrgreen:

I don't know whether he's trying to prove it to himself, or just test the board's stupidity at late hours.

This guy always does it. He just needs to STOP. He only looks at things with Federer tinted glasses.

Why try and be an objective analyst, when you are setting yourself up to favour one player, in everytime you glance your eye at a set of stats??? :mrgreen:

If he doesn't see a range of stats favouring Federer, I bet he filters it from his mind. :mrgreen: This guy is a joker.

It's cool though, some people do this, though it's the way he acts as though he is using indisputable evidence to prove his case.

He could make the best dodgy lawyer ever!

 

[firepanda]

ALL RIGHT THEN. Fine. 2003-2007. Happy?

Sampras (9 slams over 5 years)
Andre Agassi (who won 2 Slams during this period) 3 times
Boris Becker (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times
Jim Courier (who won 1 Slam during this period) 4 times

Federer (12 slams over 5 years)
Rafael Nadal (who won 0 Slams off-clay during this period) 2 times
Novak Djokovic (who won 0 Slams during this period) 2 times
Andre Agassi (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times

It changes two numbers.

EDIT: This is off-clay, for both Federer and Sampras. Their competition could have been Superman, but since they didn't win anything anyway it doesn't matter.

 

[firepanda]

True. Can you imagine if I compared Federer's competition from 2009-2014 and compare it to Sampras's from 1999-2002? :lol:

I'm being consistent by choosing the same number of years. The rose-tints would rather cherry-pick

Everyone will agree Federer's had a lot tougher last few years compared to Sampras'. But that's not what we're talking about.

Incidentally, I'm 22 years old and support Djokovic. Hardly rose-tinted.

 

[Mayonnaise]

I told you this, didn't I? :mrgreen:

I don't know whether he's trying to prove it to himself, or just test the board's stupidity at late hours.

This guy always does it. He just needs to STOP. He only looks at things with Federer tinted glasses.

Why try and be an objective analyst, when you are setting yourself up to favour one player, in everytime you glance your eye at a set of stats??? :mrgreen:

If he doesn't see a range of stats favouring Federer, I bet he filters it from his mind. :mrgreen: This guy is a joker.

It's cool though, some people do this, though it's the way he acts as though he is using indisputable evidence to prove his case.

He could make the best dodgy lawyer ever!

Says the guy that thinks Wimbledon was sped up in 2003 :lol:

 

[BallsforTennis]

Says the guy that thinks Wimbledon was sped up in 2003 :lol:

Is this gonna be your fall back 'get out of jail' card, everytime? :mrgreen:

So you can prompt me to keep showing you this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

:mrgreen:

Circles, isn't it? CIRCLES!!!

:mrgreen:

 

[Mayonnaise]

ALL RIGHT THEN. Fine. 2003-2007. Happy?

Sampras (9 slams over 5 years)
Andre Agassi (who won 2 Slams during this period) 3 times
Boris Becker (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times
Jim Courier (who won 1 Slam during this period) 4 times

Federer (12 slams over 5 years)
Rafael Nadal (who won 0 Slams off-clay during this period) 2 times
Novak Djokovic (who won 0 Slams during this period) 2 times
Andre Agassi (who won 1 Slam during this period) 3 times

It changes two numbers.

I see you're resorting to lies now. Federer faced Nadal just twice from 2003-2007 at Slams?

 

[firepanda]

I see you're resorting to lies now. Federer faced Nadal just twice from 2003-2008 at Slams?

Off-clay. Sorry, I'll edit.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Since Djokovic won his first Slam, Federer won 5 Slams. If the Wimbledon final had gone his way, he'd have won more Slams since AO 2008 than Djokovic has.

Congrats you have proven my point, Nole has won more slams in the strong era than Fed has, who won most of his in the weak era.

Additional

Nole only won 1 slam in the moderate era (08-10) which corresponds to a rising Nole and Murray, but not yet prime either, part of the reason why Fed won his slams.

Fed won 4 more slams in that era (USO 08, FO 09, Wimb 09, AO 10)

In the peak competiton era (Big 4 absolute dominance 2011-2014) the numbers are:
Nole - 6
Nadal - 5
Murray - 2
Fed - 1

So we have a distribution of:
Fed - 12 weak, 4 moderate, 1 strong
Nadal - 3 weak, 6 moderate, 5 strong
Nole - 0 weak, 1 moderate, 6 strong

and we already showed why Sampras>Fed, when you un-distort your given figures you see Fed beat "top rivals" 4 times during his 12 win slam period and even three of those wins were over 20-year old Nadal and Nole making their first appearances in a grass/HC slam final, and a 34-year old Agassi in his last threatening match. 07 Wimb was his only real win during his slam winning years vs a truly elite legit quality rival.

Hence as I said Nole>Nadal>>>>>>>>Sampras>Fed

 

[BallsforTennis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-TZeGkEQWc

Look, it's peak Agassi.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Congrats you have proven my point, Nole has won more slams in the strong era than Fed has, who won most of his in the weak era.

Additional

Nole only won 1 slam in the moderate era (08-10) which corresponds to a rising Nole and Murray, but not yet prime either, part of the reason why Fed won his slams.

Fed won 4 more slams in that era (USO 08, FO 09, Wimb 09, AO 10)

In the peak competiton era (Big 4 absolute dominance 2011-2014) the numbers are:
Nole - 6
Nadal - 5
Murray - 2
Fed - 1

So we have a distribution of:
Fed - 12 weak, 4 moderate, 1 strong
Nadal - 3 weak, 6 moderate, 5 strong
Nole - 0 weak, 1 moderate, 6 strong

and we already showed why Sampras>Fed, when you un-distort your given figures you see Fed beat "top rivals" 4 times during his 12 win slam period and even three of those wins were over 20-year old Nadal and Nole making their first appearances in a grass/HC slam final, and a 34-year old Agassi in his last threatening match. 07 Wimb was his only real win during his slam winning years vs a truly elite legit quality rival.

Hence as I said Nole>Nadal>>>>>>>>Sampras>Fed

Lmao? Federer's won nearly as much as Djokovic in the last 2 years and you want to call Federer's era the weak era? How about Djokovic just isn't as good a player as Federer? Or is that too hard to admit, seeing as Federer lead the H2H with Djokovic up until Wimbledon this year and still nearly beat a prime Djokovic in a slam final, at least 4 years past his prime.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-TZeGkEQWc

Look, it's peak Agassi.

Nobody is saying that's peak Agassi you attention seeking mug. You won't see this because you had to Ignore List me though. The truth got to you.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Incidentally, I'm 22 years old and support Djokovic. Hardly rose-tinted.

Since 2008:

Old Federer - 5 Slams
Prime Djokovic - 7 Slams

Weird how an old guy who dominated a weak era won so much in a strong era

 

[Mayonnaise]

Off-clay. Sorry, I'll edit.

Wait, why doesn't clay count? Who is cherry-picking and manipulating the numbers now? :lol:

You're not worth it. My OP is all facts. You are stretching and twisting the numbers, and now you're even dismissing surfaces :lol:

 

[firepanda]

Since 2008:

Old Federer - 5 Slams
Prime Djokovic - 7 Slams

Weird how an old guy who dominated a weak era won so much in a strong era

I'm not saying Federer's bad. He's the GOAT after all. I'd say he only began declining proper from 2010. He lost the flashy forehand, but still was playing cleverly and aggressively.