Federer's slam h2h vs the other big 3 members

[RS]

To defend Federer a little...

He was older vs Djokovic in many meetings but he should have grabbed Wim 19 which was a level playing field. The RG matches did take a toll on Fed vs Rafa but Rafa beat him in Wim 08 and AO 09 which is quite big as he was in his prime and it clearly does hurt him somewhat but still some context is needed.

 

[Federev]

6 - 11 Djokovic

4 - 10 Nadal

10 - 21 Overall

To put that into perspective, overall Djokovic is 17 - 16 and Nadal is 20 - 10

• Of his 10 victories, he went on to win the title 8 times highlighting the significance of being able to beat them at majors
• 4 of his 10 total wins have come at WIM (his best slam), so only 6 wins against both of them in the other 3 majors combined
• Has not beat Djokovic in a major since 2012 WIM
• Went nearly 10 years without beating Nadal in major (WIM07 - AO17)
• At WIM (his most successful major) his h2h against them is 4 - 4
• At AO (his 2nd most successful major) his h2h against them is 2 - 7
• At USO (his 2nd least successful major) his h2h against them is 3 - 3 (never played Nadal there)
• At RG (his least successful major) his h2h against them is 1 - 8

Like it or not Fed fans, given how close the slam race is, this is a MASSIVE dent to your claims that he is greater

AND
He is not in their generation:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/fed-is-not-rafas-or-novaks-or-murrays-peer.599675/

 

[Federev]

To defend Federer a little...

He was older vs Djokovic in many meetings but he should have grabbed Wim 19 which was a level playing field. The RG matches did take a toll on Fed vs Rafa but Rafa beat him in Wim 08 and AO 09 which is quite big as he was in his prime and it clearly does hurt him somewhat but still some context is needed.

Fed had no business being in Wimb 19 final, much less having match points.
Rafa has a much better case than Novak.
But of course Rafa is still 1-3 on grass v Fed and of course he did not show up when Fed was in his own peak on HCs.
Still Rafa is beast.

 

[King No1e]

 

[TMF]

This thread is coming from a poster that had a complete meltdown when Federer won the 2018 AO or am I wrong ?

2017

 

[InsideOut900]

Where did you prove this?

I don't need to prove it. You have to take my word for it.

If I say Federer from 2017 AO was the best Federer and better than Nadal from 2009 AO, how would you disapprove it? Really curious of the logic you apply here.

Now applying the same logic to what I said in the other post and see if you are right.

Yes who cares how you perform against the best at the pinnacle of tennis? Lets just look at slams won against Baghdatis/Roddick/Philippousis and the number of Christmas exho tourneys won.

Who stopped Nadal, you didn't answer?
It was not Fed, not Novak, then who?

 

[Phoenix1983]

And players like Djokovic and Nadal take the Olympics very seriously, but you don't see me propping it up as the 3rd most important metric, because clearly that would be ludicrous.

If we are using draw quality then warmups like Queens should be on par with slams and YEC would be more important than slams.

None of these arguments disprove the fact that the setup and motives behind the tournament degrade its prestige.

Olympics are only held once every four years and are a relatively new addition to the tennis calendar, compared to the YEC.

Queens should probably be considered on par with a Masters, not a slam.

Your last sentence is simply nonsense.

 

[Federev]

2017

Seen it many times but I had to stop and watch most of that.

My favorite sports moment of all time.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Olympics are only held once every four years and are a relatively new addition to the tennis calendar, compared to the YEC.

Queens should probably be considered on par with a Masters, not a slam.

Your last sentence is simply nonsense.

Can’t disprove —> nonsense

It’s clearly a structurally flawed tournament that has in recent times rewarded opportunistic players in order to distort rankings and manufacture interest. Gimmicky Round robin, exorbitant points/prize money, arbitrary rules.

If we look at draw level, lots of other tournaments would be as prestigious as slams.

And you haven’t convinced me why a metric such as weeks #1 which is more prone to bias, is a more important metric than H2H, # of masters.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Can’t disprove —> nonsense

LOL, why should I go to the effort of disproving the statement "the setup and motives behind the tournament degrade its prestige" ?

The burden is on to you prove that there are bad motives which lower its prestige. To be frank, given that all the great champions of the game have taken it very seriously (and most consider it the 5th biggest tournament in the game), it's clearly prestigious. The fact that it's the only major tournament played indoors - which has been an important playing condition throughout the sport's history - only enhance its prestige. As does the fact it features only the game's top 8 players.

 

[BackhandDTL]

LOL, why should I go to the effort of disproving the statement "the setup and motives behind the tournament degrade its prestige" ?

The burden is on to you prove that there are bad motives which lower its prestige. To be frank, given that all the great champions of the game have taken it very seriously (and most consider it the 5th biggest tournament in the game), it's clearly prestigious. The fact that it's the only major tournament played indoors - which has been an important playing condition throughout the sport's history - only enhance its prestige. As does the fact it features only the game's top 8 players.

Ok so the Olympics is the most prestigious tournament ever. Tennis Greats like Djokovic were sobbing after losing.


I’ve explained my reasoning for why it’s not as prestigious as it seems. It’s not Halle but it’s no Grand Slam or Indian Wells/Rome either.

 

[King No1e]

It's certainly a check on Nadal and Djokovic's resumes, but not as important as people say IMO. H2H is very useful for predicting matches and analyzing matchups and playing styles, but the GOAT debate is about so much more than that.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Yes

 

[BackhandDTL]

LOL, why should I go to the effort of disproving the statement "the setup and motives behind the tournament degrade its prestige" ?

The burden is on to you prove that there are bad motives which lower its prestige. To be frank, given that all the great champions of the game have taken it very seriously (and most consider it the 5th biggest tournament in the game), it's clearly prestigious. The fact that it's the only major tournament played indoors - which has been an important playing condition throughout the sport's history - only enhance its prestige. As does the fact it features only the game's top 8 players.

Is the NBA all star game the most prestigious game ever? Only the top 30 players qualify.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Is the NBA all star game the most prestigious game ever? Only the top 30 players qualify.

I don't watch the NBA so can't comment.

 

[alexio]

Is the NBA all star game the most prestigious game ever? Only the top 30 players qualify.

no

 

[Deleted member 748597]

I don't watch the NBA so can't comment.

You can win this debate. You can beat BackhandDTL. You just need to believe in yourself.

 

[BackhandDTL]

You can win this debate. You can beat BackhandDTL. You just need to believe in yourself.

I’ve never lost a debate. I’m a strong era champ like PETE at Wimbledon.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

I’ve never lost a debate. I’m a strong era champ like PETE at Wimbledon.

I know. That's why I'm trying to encourage him somehow.

 

[BackhandDTL]

I don't need to prove it. You have to take my word for it.

If I say Federer from 2017 AO was the best Federer and better than Nadal from 2009 AO, how would you disapprove it? Really curious of the logic you apply here.

Now applying the same logic to what I said in the other post and see if you are right.


Who stopped Nadal, you didn't answer?
It was not Fed, not Novak, then who?

Who stopped Nadal? Novak and Fed. And injuries.

They stopped him less so than Nadal stopped them, so what’s your point here.


Again Nadal 09 vs prime Fed at AO was close, you could argue either way. Your proposition is simply ludicrous

And 09 Nadal has 10 times the competition than any Fed at the AO. Roger himself and a goating Verdasco

 

[King No1e]

You can win this debate. You can beat BackhandDTL. You just need to believe in yourself.

Vamos Bamos

 

[King No1e]

Who stopped Nadal? Novak and Fed. And injuries.

They stopped him less so than Nadal stopped them, so what’s your point here.


Again Nadal 09 vs prime Fed at AO was close, you could argue either way. Your proposition is simply ludicrous

And 09 Nadal has 10 times the competition than any Fed at the AO. Roger himself and a goating Verdasco

Verdasco is stronk competition but Gonzalez and Baghdatis aren't?

 

[Deleted member 748597]

 

[InsideOut900]

They stopped him less so than Nadal stopped them, so what’s your point here.

If Nadal's rivals stopped him less he should have more Slams by some margin, wtf is so hard. That was my point.

Of course Nadal has big wins since his absolute best form overlapped with non-peak versions of the other 2. It's just a statement that he is a great player himself.

What if Federer lost early at AO 09, 12 and 14, but instead they played at AO 05, 07, 10 and Fed won?

Does him having a better h2h by following this scenario make him better?

This is where the h2h fails for me.
It's not about who is better in general, but who was better on a given day.
You can be great during one final, but all other failures and early losses are excused because of that.

 

[alexio]

damn, what happened to gravanobrigadis in the final..his run was so stronk.. blew such mastodons as hewitt and andy off of the court and what then.. is that really another proof of knee-trembling in front of this magical name created by media...roooger federer...wwhooooo...and freebie again going to mister federer as a result, as it used to be...sad, really sad (see another example of it at roland garros 09 in case with robin facking great soderling)..what a pity

 

[Deleted member 748597]

damn, what happened to gravanobrigadis in the final..his run was so stronk.. blew such mastodons as hewitt and andy off of the court and what then.. is that really another proof of knee-trembling in front of this magical name created by media...roooger federer...wwhooooo...and freebie again going to mister federer as a result, as it used to be...sad, really sad (see another example of it at roland garros 09 in case with robin facking great soderling)..what a pity

Grav is a mental midget. He's like Kevin Anderson in Slam finals. That's how Fed vultured many of his titles.

 

[King No1e]

damn, what happened to gravanobrigadis in the final..his run was so stronk.. blew such mastodons as hewitt and andy off of the court and what then.. is that really another proof of knee-trembling in front of this magical name created by media...roooger federer...wwhooooo...and freebie again going to mister federer as a result, as it used to be...sad, really sad (see another example of it at roland garros 09 in case with robin facking great soderling)..what a pity

This "robin fackeng great soderling" did beat Nadal and Federer in back to back years. He was the best claycourter not named Fedalovic during his prime

 

[Federev]

uh... um... I think someone might think that's real.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Lol. Every time since 08dal/11ovic Jodl struggle to beat fred works in his favour since they are closer to peak/prime thus suggesting he must have peaked higher if even past peak/prime he makes them sweat. (11rg excepted, fedr was actually closer to his best then nadl somehow, still a great mystery.)

 

[alexio]

This "robin fackeng great soderling" did beat Nadal and Federer in back to back years. He was the best claycourter not named Fedalovic during his prime

that badger was the best except nafevic? lol.. sorry, but i stronkly disagree

 

[Phoenix1983]

You can win this debate. You can beat BackhandDTL. You just need to believe in yourself.

I have won the debate. I'm just not going to comment on off-topic stuff I know little about.

Spoiler

 

[mike danny]

Nadal leads the H2H over Federer both in outdoor hard (8-5) and at the Australian Open (3-1), so it's not like he only leads the H2H over Federer on clay.

Not all outdoor HC are created equal, but I don't expect you to understand this.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

I have won the debate. I'm just not going to comment on off-topic stuff I know little about.

Spoiler

Agassi can't be an ATG after losing that match 6-2 6-0. The Spencer totally exposed him.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal has always led the H2H over Federer, even when Federer was young and in his prime in 2004-2009 (22-27 years old). The age excuse is not valid for Nadal dominating the H2H over Federer.

You're right. The reason is Nadal vulturing wins over 2013-early 2014 Fed, while not reciprocating.

 

[mike danny]

The YEC features the top 8 players in the world. It's the only tournament where it's impossible to win with a weak draw. Clearly the greats of the game take it very seriously, as is evidenced by the list of winners.

And somehow Dimitrov managed it.

 

[lucky13]

But it is for Djokovic leading the H2H over Federer. Their Slam h2h was 6-5 in Federer's favour at the end of 2012 season.

fed has dominated a weak field, and that is a fact. as soon as he faced strong competition he stopped dominating. when rafa broke through outside clay and nole and muzza established themselves it was the end of feds dominance. and not because of age but because of tougher competition. fed had a negative h2h against both rafa and muzza even in his own era (2006-2009)! then he had the best results and the others were almost teenagers.

fed vs muzza (2006-2009): 3-6
fed vs rafa (2006-2009): 6-11

and he dominated nole before he was solving his problems with breathing and gluten. nole before 2011 and after that year are 2 different players.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

I think that I somewhat derailed this thread. Probably gonna leave now.

 

[mike danny]

To defend Federer a little...

He was older vs Djokovic in many meetings but he should have grabbed Wim 19 which was a level playing field. The RG matches did take a toll on Fed vs Rafa but Rafa beat him in Wim 08 and AO 09 which is quite big as he was in his prime and it clearly does hurt him somewhat but still some context is needed.

In no way was Wimb 2019 an even playing field.

 

[alexio]

Lol. Every time since 08dal/11ovic Jodl struggle to beat fred works in his favour since they are closer to peak/prime thus suggesting he must have peaked higher if even past peak/prime he makes them sweat. (11rg excepted, fedr was actually closer to his best then nadl somehow, still a great mystery.)

 

[lucky13]

AND
He is not in their generation:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/fed-is-not-rafas-or-novaks-or-murrays-peer.599675/

fed had a negative h2h against both rafa and muzza even in his own era (2006-2009)! then he had the best results and the others were almost teenagers.

fed vs muzza (2006-2009): 3-6
fed vs rafa (2006-2009): 6-11

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

And somehow Dimitrov managed it.

Helps when the best players of recent times are all in ruins. Late 2017 was the absolute nadir.

 

[Bamoos]

Wimbledon 2008 was pretty bad, despite the court being very bouncy. Fed was the king there and should’ve imposed his game on Nadal, not meekly going 0-2 down which was too much of a mountain to climb.

AO09, terribly slow court but Fed’s still better on HCs. Choked 1st and 3rd sets, should’ve been a routine 4 set.

I give Fed negative marks for those two. H2H is already measured in the title counts though. If Nadal is so good at slam h2h he should have a big slam lead by now.

 

[mike danny]

The Big 3 are not all of the same age so these numbers aren't overly important. Not saying they don't matter, but they don't tell the whole story.

Make Fed 5-6 years younger than both and he cleans up. Or make Nadal the significantly older player and he'd get his ass handed to him repeatedly.

These numbers would have more significance if Fed was the same age as them.

 

[Bamoos]

I’ve never lost a debate. I’m a strong era champ like PETE at Wimbledon.

The only way you win a debate, is the same way a ****ting pigeon wins a game of chess against a grand master.

 

[Bamoos]

fed has dominated a weak field, and that is a fact. as soon as he faced strong competition he stopped dominating. when rafa broke through outside clay and nole and muzza established themselves it was the end of feds dominance. and not because of age but because of tougher competition. fed had a negative h2h against both rafa and muzza even in his own era (2006-2009)! then he had the best results and the others were almost teenagers.

fed vs muzza (2006-2009): 3-6
fed vs rafa (2006-2009): 6-11

and he dominated nole before he was solving his problems with breathing and gluten. nole before 2011 and after that year are 2 different players.

Fed’s own level declined too. This is measurable in his declining win %, return games won, return points etc. Mono didn’t help start of 08, he lost his edge and around 07/08 he changed his FH for the worse.

Your h2h numbers there are literally meaningless.
If they’re the same gen, then we need to take marks from Djokovic for failing to reach Fed at slams in 04-06. Of course that’s absurd, because they’re not the same gen.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal has been owned by Fedovic after 2014, when he was 28. Coincidentally, that's when Fed's H2Hs started going downhill. Yet, no one mentions this at all.

Now imagine if Nadal was the one significantly older. It wouldn't be pretty.

 

[Federev]

fed had a negative h2h against both rafa and muzza even in his own era (2006-2009)! then he had the best results and the others were almost teenagers.

fed vs muzza (2006-2009): 3-6
fed vs rafa (2006-2009): 6-11

the context was slams.. so I'm not worried about muzza. he's pretty much gotten nowhere w fed there.

Rafa is a beast. And rafa had fed's number on clay for sure. like he has on everyone. But 2-1 fed on grass. (now 3-1 fed). And he also padded his h2h resume failing to meet fed anywhere in slam HCs but the AO once up till 2009. he failed to make the grade, (or was in too low a grade) during fed's glory days at the uso.

given Nad's total # of hc titles in comparison to fed, I don't see much obviously in rafa's favor.

At the end of the day - if you create the parameters you like - you can make these stats say almost anything.

but you can't change someone's birthday.

Fed's had these guys on his back - 5-6 years his junior - for most of his career as a post-prime player. After 2009, that age advantage will forever be in their favor. if they play another 10 years they should beat him every time.

that he's so close and wins as much as he does is most certainly - not in their favor at all.

 

[NoleFam]

And you haven’t convinced me why a metric such as weeks #1 which is more prone to bias, is a more important metric than H2H, # of masters.

How exactly is #1 prone to bias? You either have enough points to be #1 or you don't. It's not subjective. I know you are not arguing head to head is more important than being #1 and ending the year #1.

 

[brc444]

Just wanted to note that Fed has won 7 of his last 8 matches against Nadal, including 2-1 at the slams.

 

[lucky13]

the context was slams.. so I'm not worried about muzza. he's pretty much gotten nowhere w fed there.

Rafa is a beast. And rafa had fed's number on clay for sure. like he has on everyone. But 2-1 fed on grass. (now 3-1 fed). And he also padded his h2h resume failing to meet fed anywhere in slam HCs but the AO once up till 2009. he failed to make the grade, (or was in too low a grade) during fed's glory days at the uso.

given Nad's total # of hc titles in comparison to fed, I don't see much obviously in rafa's favor.

At the end of the day - if you create the parameters you like - you can make these stats say almost anything.

but you can't change someone's birthday.

Fed's had these guys on his back - 5-6 years his junior - for most of his career as a post-prime player. After 2009, that age advantage will forever be in their favor. if they play another 10 years they should beat him every time.

that he's so close and wins as much as he does is most certainly - not in their favor at all.

I just wanted to show that it has never been age that was a problem for Roger without him simply facing better resistance after 2009.