Federer's slam h2h vs the other big 3 members

[alexio]

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

i caught myself thinking while seeing this gif.. how great that party was including you, me and some other guys, (without sudaca it's not a party yea)..and of course our driving force..our little z.. sad, it's uncertain now when the party will be resumed again

 

[Bamoos]

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.

Actually it was when it came to Djokovic.

Murray isn’t relevant here, he always owned him at the slams since 2008.

Nadal h2h mostly down to Nadal failure to reach Fed often, clay skew and 2013-2014ao racking up wins over back erer

 

[WhiskeyEE]

5-6 year age advantage
Technology advantage (90 sq in racquet)

 

[CYGS]

Elephant in the room

 

[Third Serve]

Just now found this. Can't wait to read all 3 pages of this intellectually stimulating thread!

 

[Winners or Errors]

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

Apples to oranges. How does one get selected to the NBA All-Star game?

 

[Federev]

Just now found this. Can't wait to read all 3 pages of this intellectually stimulating thread!

It's like nothing you've ever seen here before.

ENJOY!

 

[Third Serve]

It's like nothing you've ever seen here before.

ENJOY!

Thank you, yes, I did. This is just about the finest s**thole this side of the No Excuses thread.

 

[BackhandDTL]

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

Gonzalez and Baghdatis mugged it up in the final.

Dasco actually goated

 

[BackhandDTL]

Roger mugged it up

Nadals the goat

Fed the woat

Djoko the coat

 

[King No1e]

Gonzalez and Baghdatis mugged it up in the final.

Dasco actually goated

Someone hasn't seen the AO06 final it seems. Baghdatis had Federer in serious trouble for the first 2 sets

 

[BackhandDTL]

Someone hasn't seen the AO06 final it seems. Baghdatis had Federer in serious trouble for the first 2 sets

That Fed would have gotten ***** by Verdasco

 

[Third Serve]

Someone hasn't seen the AO06 final it seems. Baghdatis had Federer in serious trouble for the first 2 sets

While Baggy did play well, Fed wasn't at his best that match (and in the whole tournament in general). Tabasco would beat him.

 

[BackhandDTL]

While Baggy did play well, Fed wasn't at his best that match (and in the whole tournament in general). Tabasco would beat him.

Even a Fed fan has unflinchingly admitted that Fed loses to Tabasco sauce.

More like @King No1e didnt watch the match and is pulling the classic “oh look at the scoreboard”

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

While Baggy did play well, Fed wasn't at his best that match (and in the whole tournament in general). Tabasco would beat him.

Verdasco would choke as he always does, no way he could muster the balls required to beat fedr in a chelem finale. Hypothetical Fernie maintaining his 09 SF level throughout would win, but he wouldn't maintain it duh.

 

[King No1e]

Even a Fed fan has unflinchingly admitted that Fed loses to Tabasco sauce.

More like @King No1e didnt watch the match and is pulling the classic “oh look at the scoreboard”

Sure, Verdasco might've won because Fed wasn't playing great. But to say Baggy "mugged up" is still ridiculous. He played amazing tennis for 2 sets.

 

[Third Serve]

Verdasco would choke as he always does, no way he could muster the balls required to beat fedr in a chelem finale. Hypothetical Fernie maintaining his 09 SF level throughout would win, but he wouldn't maintain it duh.

I meant beat Baghdatis, not Fed lol. Bit vague, I guess.

But Dasco does have the level needed to beat Fed there. It's just you can never really trust his mentality. I feel like if he could take those first two sets, which is certainly within the realm of possibility considering Baggy came somewhat close to doing so, I might trust him a little more to close it out, especially if it's that specific SF version of him. If he drops one of the first two however, then I can't really have him as a favorite. I think he'd need to set a reasonable distance between him and Fed.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Sure, Verdasco might've won because Fed wasn't playing great. But to say Baggy "mugged up" is still ridiculous. He played amazing tennis for 2 sets.

Nothing impressive. Played worse than he did in the earlier rounds, classic mug.

not amazing.

 

[ForehandRF]

Verdasco would choke as he always does, no way he could muster the balls required to beat fedr in a chelem finale. Hypothetical Fernie maintaining his 09 SF level throughout would win, but he wouldn't maintain it duh.

Verdasco played great, but many people don't give the same credit to Gonzales in 2007 and that exposes their biases.

 

[socallefty]

Any truth to the rumor that the great man has copyrighted the term ‘Thirdwheelerer’?

 

[RS]

In no way was Wimb 2019 an even playing field.

Disagree by looking at form.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Any truth to the rumor that the great man has copyrighted the term ‘Thirdwheelerer’?

He will make money off of Djokovic?

 

[Phoenix1983]

And somehow Dimitrov managed it.

The exception that proves the rule.

 

[Phoenix1983]

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

I disagree. Agassi did brilliantly to win those two games. This is the Spencer we are talking about, remember.

 

[mike danny]

Disagree by looking at form.

38 is in no way an even playing field to 32 regardless of form.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Verdasco played great, but many people don't give the same credit to Gonzales in 2007 and that exposes their biases.

Gonzalez was unplayable until the final, when he predictably started mugging it up. I saw the match.

 

[RS]

38 is in no way an even playing field to 32 regardless of form.

You look at age and ignoring changes in form is the problem. Anyways disagree.

 

[BackhandDTL]

You look at age and ignoring changes in form is the problem. Anyways disagree.

Idk what you are even talking about but since you are arguing against that mike danny guy you are probably right

 

[Deleted member 775898]

Idk what you are even talking about but since you are arguing against that mike danny guy you are probably right

Damn, that roast .

 

[Lew II]

Five-setters:

Federer 2-6
Nadal 3-4
Djokovic 6-1

Epic.

 

[alexio]

Five-setters:

Federer 2-6
Nadal 3-4
Djokovic 6-1

Epic.

the king of clutchness

 

[mike danny]

You look at age and ignoring changes in form is the problem. Anyways disagree.

Well, age clearly was a hindrance since he couldn't even beat a below par Djokovic, which would have been inconceivable several years back.

 

[mike danny]

Damn, that roast .

Yeah, ouch...I am so hurt. How will I ever be able to sleep at night?

 

[Thetouch]

It's the same topic that we have talked about a milion times before but I will say this: the Wimbledon '08 and AO '09 Nadal is probably the strongest version of any of the Big 3 that I have seen in the recent 15 years. Even though he went to tough 5 setters against Verdasco and Federer twice I never had the feeling that he would lose against anybody then because he was physically and mentally so much stronger than the rest. Too bad he couldn't keep it up in '09 because he might have been able to win Wimbledon 3 times in a row.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

It is not looking good.

 

[BackhandDTL]

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.

Prone to bias because of quality of competition. Nadals not racking up more weeks #1 than Fedovic if Fed’s quality of competition during his prime was declining Roddick, Hewitt, head case Nalbandian/Safin and Djokovic’s was post prime Murray, Nishikori, Raonic, geriatric Fed.

Atleast you can dissect slam H2H by surface/year so that if you wanted to you could look at prime v prime on a neutral surface. It’s not a perfect metric but more reliable than weeks #1 in my opinion. I think this is a more important indicator anyways because it demonstrates performance against the best of the best at the pinnacle of tennis.

 

[The_Order]

Is this lame bait, or do you actually believe this based on the things you've posted? If so... Is this one of your other accounts, Lew? You calculator you. Also... Did you just have this epiphany today? I'm wondering what inspired the timing?

Yeah I actually believe this because they are facts...

You can continue believing your little fantasy that Fed is greater than them, but reality hits Fed fans harder than others.

I've been around a lot longer than Lew mate...

Timing inspired by the fact that it's end of season.

 

[ibbi]

Yeah I actually believe this because they are facts...

You can continue believing your little fantasy that Fed is greater than them, but reality hits Fed fans harder than others.

I've been around a lot longer than Lew mate...

Timing inspired by the fact that it's end of season.

I didn't say anything about Federer being greater than them, and I am not a Fed fan. Using these numbers to back up this argument is grossly oversimplified, and straight up dumb.

 

[The_Order]

I didn't say anything about Federer being greater than them, and I am not a Fed fan. Using these numbers to back up this argument is grossly oversimplified, and straight up dumb.

Dumb to use facts? Should I use your fantasy logic?

Don't know what you're on about but Nadal was beating Fed in majors when he was in his prime... and no, not only at RG...

 

[Druss]

Gonzalez was unplayable until the final, when he predictably started mugging it up. I saw the match.

...and Verdasco could have very well beaten Nadal in that AO SF, then mug it up in the final vs Fed. In any case, there is barely any difference (in level of play) between Gonzo AO'07 and Dasco AO'09.

 

[BackhandDTL]

...and Verdasco could have very well beaten Nadal in that AO SF, then mug it up in the final vs Fed. In any case, there is barely any difference (in level of play) between Gonzo AO'07 and Dasco AO'09.

There’s a difference between how Dasco played against Nadal and how Gonzalez bent down when he played Fed. If you are arguing otherwise then that’s simply nonsense.

 

[NoleFam]

Prone to bias because of quality of competition. Nadals not racking up more weeks #1 than Fedovic if Fed’s quality of competition during his prime was declining Roddick, Hewitt, head case Nalbandian/Safin and Djokovic’s was post prime Murray, Nishikori, Raonic, geriatric Fed.

Atleast you can dissect slam H2H by surface/year so that if you wanted to you could look at prime v prime on a neutral surface. It’s not a perfect metric but more reliable than weeks #1 in my opinion. I think this is a more important indicator anyways because it demonstrates performance against the best of the best at the pinnacle of tennis.

You can't criticize Djokovic's competition and say that's why he has more weeks at #1 when Nadal himself has been on the tour during that time, been #1 before him, and been #1 as recently as early this year. Quality of compeition? You're basically saying Nadal isn't good enough competition for Djokovic. You can't even criticize Federer for reigning over his era for so long over his rivals. At the end of the day, Djokovic and Federer were going deep in clay Masters and RG for years and years on end when Nadal wasn't doing the same on grass and certain times, on hardcourt. To be #1 and stay there, you have to be consistent year round across the whole tour and that is just something that both Federer and Djokovic did better than Nadal.

Head to head is not even the 4th or 5th most important metric in the grand scheme of things unless players are tied in everything and you need the last resort to weigh in. Do you ever hear people bringing up Connors and Lendl's head to head where Lendl is 22-13 and won the last 17 in a row although they have the same amount of Slams and roughly the same time at #1? Not really. Head to head is very very far away from being as important as being #1 and ending the #1 and dominating your field.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Those numbers at slams v Nadal and Djokovic just show you how inflated 2003 - 2007 was. If all three are the same age Federer gets nowhere near 20 slams.

 

[Druss]

There’s a difference between how Dasco played against Nadal and how Gonzalez bent down when he played Fed. If you are arguing otherwise then that’s simply nonsense.

Gonzo actually didn't play that bad. Not sure why you're downplaying him so much. I don't think you realise Gonzo was playing absolute peak (god-mode) Fed, in what is arguably his best AO, and one of his best ever performances.