I cant believe Federer only has 1 FO more than John Isner

Kralingen

Hall of Fame
Fun fact: myself and my friend Will have as many ejections (1) from the US Open (Public drunkenness and yelling) as so-called GOAT Novak Djokovic. Talk about a weak era.
 
Let's not pretend like John Isner is bad on clay. He's one of the only two players to push Nadal to 5 sets at RG.

:cool:
Three players: Djokovic (twice), Isner, and Soderling. If you beat a player, you have pushed them to five sets. They just might not have pushed you to five sets. Pushing someone to five sets means winning two sets against them.
 
This thread shows in a very clear way the problems with assessing players only by how many major titles they have won.

A good primer especially for those who rate Wawrinka as roughly equal to Murray. Yes, Wawrinka has as many Slam titles as does Murray. Yes, Wawrinka's Slam titles probably involved reaching a higher level than Murray ever reached. No, Wawrinka's overall body of work - either in Slams or overall - is not remotely on a par with that of Murray.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Let's not pretend like John Isner is bad on clay. He's one of the only two players to push Nadal to 5 sets at RG.
LOL, the guy's career RGW% on clay doesn't even exceed 10% (9.87%) and he has yet to clear the 4th round at RG. I dunno what your definition of "bad on [whatever surface]" is but it's almost impossible for a top player to do worse than that (in fact Karlovic is the only one with a lower career RGW%). Any bot can push a GOAT when his serve is clicking, especially vs. a Nadal whose court positioning makes him vulnerable vs. big servers/hitters.

Also the fact that Sampras and Murray have a Rome title while Federer doesn't is maybe more upsetting to me than 40-15.
Another fun fact: '94 Pete and '16 Muzz won 60.1% (sans WTC which was an exo in all but name) and 58.8% of their games on clay, neither of which is that far behind Fed's career high of 60.8% (sans DC) in '05.

And neither ain't even their own career high cuz '93 Pete and '15 Muzz won 60.3% (60.8% sans Atlanta on green clay) and 60.4% (again sans DC) respectively, putting both in the exclusive 60% Club which the likes of Korda, Berasategui, Kafelnikov, Stich, Moya, A. Medvedev, Norman, A. Costa, Verkerk, Puerta, Soderling, Wawrinka and Thiem* - all FO champs and finalists since '91 - were never able to join.

Sure you can chalk it all up to the luck of the draw, but at least for two seasons each Pete and Andy were legit contenders at RG, and in Muzz's case we don't need to guess as he made the '16 final (though his early 5-set scares vs. Stepanek and Bourgue admittedly didn't inspire confidence).

*If you don't round up you can also throw in '95 Chang (59.95%), '97/'00 Corretja (59.9%/59.8%) and '05 Gaudio (59.6%). And if you're curious to look beyond FO finalists you can click the 2nd link above (or here).
 

tudwell

Legend
Another fun fact: '94 Pete and '16 Muzz won 60.1% (sans WTC which was an exo in all but name) and 58.8% of their games on clay, neither of which is that far behind Fed's career high of 60.8% (sans DC) in '05.

And neither ain't even their own career high cuz '93 Pete and '15 Muzz won 60.3% (60.8% sans Atlanta on green clay) and 60.4% (again sans DC) respectively, putting both in the exclusive 60% Club which the likes of Korda, Berasategui, Kafelnikov, Stich, Moya, A. Medvedev, Norman, A. Costa, Verkerk, Puerta, Soderling, Wawrinka and Thiem* - all FO champs and finalists since '91 - were never able to join.

Sure you can chalk it all up to the luck of the draw, but at least for two seasons each Pete and Andy were legit contenders at RG, and in Muzz's case we don't need to guess as he made the '16 final (though his early 5-set scares vs. Stepanek and Bourgue admittedly didn't inspire confidence).

*If you don't round up you can also throw in '95 Chang (59.95%), '97/'00 Corretja (59.9%/59.8%) and '05 Gaudio (59.6%). And if you're curious to look beyond FO finalists you can click the 2nd link above (or here).
Interesting. I didn't mean they weren't deserving champions. But Fed had championship points against Rafa of all people! And totally laid an egg in a winnable final in 03 (which might have also given him the YE#1 that season had he won?).
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Interesting. I didn't mean they weren't deserving champions. But Fed had championship points against Rafa of all people! And totally laid an egg in a winnable final in 03 (which might have also given him the YE#1 that season had he won?).
Didn't mean to imply you did. Just saying, that Pistol or Muzz vs. Fed would be pretty damn competitive at RG, certainly more so than most people think.

And screw ATP rankings. For moi Fed is the real # 1 of '03 (though you can certainly make a case for A-Rod or even JCF). If being #1 means being the best player in the world, as it should, then that mighty (impressive) YEC finale should be the clincher:


But then I also think Pistol was numero uno in '99, so make of that what you will. :happydevil::cool:
 

brc444

Rookie
When discussing slams among Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic, I think it would be helpful to include finials along with slam wins to get a more complete picture. So for Fed and Djokovic at FO and Nadal at AO, they each have 1 win and 4 times runner up (hopefully counted correctly).
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
On the scale of incredibility:
1. Nadal having only 1 AO (hardest to believe)
2. Djokovic having only 1 RG
3. then, Federer having only 1 RG

Wawrinka had direct hands on #1, #2 and even #3!
 
Top