Is JMac's 82-3 season record in jeopardy?

QueenSeles said:
Good I'm glad you acknowledge who is the greater player at this point. As for predictions, well even an old man Fed beat prime Nadal on HC, similar to what young Nadal was doing to prime Fed on clay. The difference is they met numerous more times on clay. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that. Nadal himself has said the H2H has very little meaning because they met many more times on clay. Nadal said that. Who would know better, you or him?
Click to expand...

So you think he gives himself a zero chance of beating Federer on HCs/grass each time he goes out there? I don't care about the meaning of the numbers (H2H match-up is very different from H2H stats), but there is NO WAY Rafa would have been an easy prospect on any surface at any time, he's won enough times on all surfaces, especially on the big stage, to show that he can take on Roger anytime anywhere. Now if he had lost every time on faster surfaces and only won on clay, I would be singing a different tune.
 
single_handed_champion said:
So you think he gives himself a zero chance of beating Federer on HCs/grass each time he goes out there? I don't care about the meaning of the numbers (H2H match-up is very different from H2H stats), but there is NO WAY Rafa would have been an easy prospect on any surface at any time, he's won enough times on all surfaces, especially on the big stage, to show that he can take on Roger anytime anywhere. Now if he had lost every time on faster surfaces and only won on clay, I would be singing a different tune.
Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't give himself zero chance. I agree Rafa would not have been an easy prospect on any surface for Federer. But my bet is that the H2H would be a lot closer if the surface distribution of their meetings was more evenly spread. That's all I'm saying. The other thing I'm saying is H2H has little weight compared to your record against the field. In an extreme example, even if a guy was 10-0 against Federer but he had won no titles at all, that 10-0 is meaningless. But if a guy is 0-10 against Federer yet had won numerous titles that places him much higher.
 
QueenSeles said:
Of course he doesn't give himself zero chance. I agree Rafa would not have been an easy prospect on any surface for Federer. But my bet is that the H2H would be a lot closer if the surface distribution of their meetings was more evenly spread. That's all I'm saying. The other thing I'm saying is H2H has little weight compared to your record against the field. In an extreme example, even if a guy was 10-0 against Federer but he had won no titles at all, that 10-0 is meaningless. But if a guy is 0-10 against Federer yet had won numerous titles that places him much higher.
Click to expand...

Contrast this with what you actually said, that "HC slams would have been a worse result for sure. No doubt.", "Prime healthy Fed would dispose of Nadal quite easily in any HC slam", "That old Fed beat him on indoor HC is quite indicative.", "What do you think would have happened if he would have met prime Fed? He would have been demolished."

Hardly the tone of a reasonable person IMO.
 
single_handed_champion said:
Contrast this with what you actually said, that "HC slams would have been a worse result for sure. No doubt.", "Prime healthy Fed would dispose of Nadal quite easily in any HC slam", "That old Fed beat him on indoor HC is quite indicative.", "What do you think would have happened if he would have met prime Fed? He would have been demolished."

Hardly the tone of a reasonable person IMO.
Click to expand...

You've never heard of hyperbole? How could I really know for sure how things would go? You can't be that dense. Obviously life is all about probabilities. And I stand by the probability that prime Fed would LIKELY defeat Nadal on HC slams if they had met their in his prime. Please don't get caught in semantics. Now don't you dare bring up AO09 and claim 'prime' is meaningless. Because if you want to use that line of thought, then 16>9 >>>> H2H. Either or.
 
QueenSeles said:
You've never heard of hyperbole? How could I really know for sure how things would go? You can't be that dense. Obviously life is all about probabilities. And I stand by the probability that prime Fed would LIKELY defeat Nadal on HC slams if they had met their in his prime. Please don't get caught in semantics. . Now don't you dare bring up AO09 and claim 'prime' is meaningless. Because if you want to use that line of thought, then 16>9 >>>> H2H. Either or
Click to expand...

Oh dear... speaking of dense...
 
single_handed_champion said:
Although this needs to be a more complex law, because since when did a thread with 70-odd posts become a 'long' argument?

Fact is, Fedal debates arise anywhere, everywhere, at the drop of a hat, with no need for provocations or incentives :)
Click to expand...
Heh, good point :)

Jchurch said:
Hood Man's law will also work quite nicely. But yes you are right. All threads eventually end up being a Fedal thread.
Click to expand...

:lol: I've never had a law named after me before, let's see how this works out.
 
Eviction Notices Required

If you can't stay on topic, stay out of the thread! Fed & Nadal both have 3 losses already so they can barely tie JMac if they were to play enough events, which is highly unlikely for either. Soderling and Monfils have two losses each so they would have to run the table and play enough events, something highly unlikely. Which brings us to the one possible contender for a .950+ winning percentage: Novak Djokovic. Not Fedal, not who would beat who on what surface and in which month with more than 27 days. Post your own "I'm right, no I'm right" thread and battle it out! I'm sick of looking through 40 posts to read one not about your raging battles about two guys being eclipsed currently by a guy who could possibly rewrite the record book this year. Play your kindergarten-level game elsewhere so you won't bore people that don't care who comes out on top in your inane debate. Do you catch my drift? Peace and out!
 
stringertom said:
If you are referring to the 1973/74 stats for James Scott Connors, 1973 had a better percentage but fewer wins (89-4 .957) than 1974 (95-6 .941). That's a lot of really good tennis, too. 184-10 over two years! They really played a lot back in the day, eh?
Click to expand...

This is in no way accurate. Connors had thirteen losses in 1973.

EDIT: Excuse me, FOURTEEN losses.
 
Last edited:
Stat website ID

Carsomyr said:
This is in no way accurate. Connors had thirteen losses in 1973.

EDIT: Excuse me, FOURTEEN losses.
Click to expand...

I used a website I identified in an earlier post for all the stats: strategic tennis.com. According to the site, Connors record in 1973 was 89-4, a .957 percentage. Identify your source and I will be happy to contact my source about any discrepancy.
 
QueenSeles said:
You've never heard of hyperbole? How could I really know for sure how things would go? You can't be that dense. Obviously life is all about probabilities. And I stand by the probability that prime Fed would LIKELY defeat Nadal on HC slams if they had met their in his prime. Please don't get caught in semantics. Now don't you dare bring up AO09 and claim 'prime' is meaningless. Because if you want to use that line of thought, then 16>9 >>>> H2H. Either or.
Click to expand...

Even when both are retired, Fed will still be >>>> than Nadal.

16 >>>> 12

No matter how people spin it, Fed will allways be >>>> than Nadal.

IMO, Nadal will win 3 more slams and Fed will not win anymore slams from now on for many different reasons. Mainly that with healthy/fit players like Nadal, Nole and Del Po, it will be impossible for Fed to win another slam.
 
Last edited:
Fiji said:
Even when both are retired, Fed will still be >>>> than Nadal.

16 >>>> 12

No matter how people spin it, Fed will allways be >>>> than Nadal.

IMO, Nadal will win 3 more slams and Fed will not win anymore slams from now on for many different reasons. Mainly that with healthy/fit players like Nadal, Nole and Del Po, it will be impossible for Fed to win another slam.
Click to expand...

Federer IS better than Nadal. Anyone arguing that point doesn't know anything about tennis. Just bc Federer is better than Rafa doesn't mean anyone should like him better though. Let Nadal fans be Nadal fans, delusional or not. It's just nice to have a claim that Rafa is his equal when THEY MEET on a tennis court.
 
MichaelNadal said:
Federer IS better than Nadal. Anyone arguing that point doesn't know anything about tennis. Just bc Federer is better than Rafa doesn't mean anyone should like him better though. Let Nadal fans be Nadal fans, delusional or not. It's just nice to have a claim that Rafa is his equal when THEY MEET on a tennis court.
Click to expand...

I am utterly SHOCKED :shock: A sane, rational and non-gay post by you???

This ---> :shock::shock::shock:
 
QueenSeles said:
I am utterly SHOCKED :shock: A sane, rational and non-gay post by you???

This ---> :shock::shock::shock:
Click to expand...

Actually when you're not attacking me, and im not directly responding to a ****, im always rational. Im completely aware Federer is better than Rafa, and I don't think anyone will ever be as consistent as he was, unparalleled IMO. I just like Nadal better, he was the only person to challenge Federer and really stand up to him when everyone else was afraid as soon as they walked on court. And that's why im a Nadal fan.
 
Mac's record could really be in trouble, though it is really too early in the season; But I just saw that Nole is again in scintillating form in Miami :)
 
stringertom said:
I used a website I identified in an earlier post for all the stats: strategic tennis.com. According to the site, Connors record in 1973 was 89-4, a .957 percentage. Identify your source and I will be happy to contact my source about any discrepancy.
Click to expand...

Here are his results for 1973 from the ATP website. These are official ATP matches. He likely played some exhibition events as well back then as the tour was just getting off the ground. !973 was a strange year.

Beginning with 1973, the Association of Tennis Professionals began issuing computer-generated weekly rankings. Collins shows the top 10 players in these rankings for the last week of every calendar year through 2002.
Click to expand...

Also, there was a players strike at Wimbledon for example.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Co/J/Jimmy-Connors.aspx?t=pa&y=1973&m=s&e=0#
 
Retraction in Order

Carsomyr said:
This is in no way accurate. Connors had thirteen losses in 1973.

EDIT: Excuse me, FOURTEEN losses.
Click to expand...

I researched at another site and discovered the original statistics in question are indeed false. I have contacted strategictennis.com and requested a retraction. Thanks for pointing out their error and my mislaid trust in their authenticity.
 
I too believe MacEnroe's 83-3 season record is in jeopardy.

Federer will be undefeated for the rest of this year and will win 84 matches. :lol:
 
The only way I can see him getting under 3 loses, and I'm not even talking about 82 wins; is if he skips the clay season all together and limits himself strictly to hardcourt. Even then, it would still be hard to maintain the streak he's going through. So many nay-sayers about nadal. Just wait till the clay season rolls around. Everybody will be climbing back on the rafa bandwagon, so predictable here. I still have a clear memory of what rafa did last season and he hasn't changed at all. Just watch.
 
stringertom said:
If Djokovic closes out with win at S-E, should we begin to believe Novak is ready to crack the upper echelon of season-long records? Fed stands in third and fourth ('05 and '06)behind JMac's astounding 82-3 in 1984 and Connors' 1973 breakout year. Fed's '04 wasn't too shabby either, standing in eighth and making Fed's cumulative won/ loss total for a three-year span at 247-15. Is Djokovic headed towards that type of dominance?
Click to expand...

Djokovic receives a loss at Roland Garros and a loss at Wimbledon. So that means he'd only be allowed to lose one more match. I don't see Mac's record in danger......:lol:
 
cork_screw said:
The only way I can see him getting under 3 loses, and I'm not even talking about 82 wins; is if he skips the clay season all together and limits himself strictly to hardcourt. Even then, it would still be hard to maintain the streak he's going through. So many nay-sayers about nadal. Just wait till the clay season rolls around. Everybody will be climbing back on the rafa bandwagon, so predictable here. I still have a clear memory of what rafa did last season and he hasn't changed at all. Just watch.
Click to expand...

He also would need to skip the grasscourt season since he has never even won a grasscourt title in his career.
 
Bobby Jr said:
I too believe MacEnroe's 83-3 season record is in jeopardy.

Federer will be undefeated for the rest of this year and will win 84 matches. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes!



Wait...I see what you did there :( Ah, well, hope dies last. It would be fine with me if he did a 81-3 this season!
 
Still not nervous, JMac?

With his quarters victory over KAnderson, ND is now 3 wins back of Lendl's second-best season-opening win streak. Should he prevail in Miami, he should pass Lendl in his first Euro clay event (Monte Carlo?). His seasonal stats so far are astounding: 22-0, 49-5 total sets, an average of 6.7 games lost per match against 21 opponents ranked inside the top 57 (lone exception was Blake). In 52 sets against top 60 players, those players have had less than 1 in 10 rate of success in winning a set! That's domination, not hype. If Djokovic wins Miami, two events leading to Paris and the FO, he would pass JMac's 39-0 start. Likely? Based on Rafa's invincibility on clay in '10 (and near perfection in prior years), probably not. But a win over Rafa in the Miami final would feed doubt now creeping in to the Majorcan's psyche. Is Novak now what I was to Roger? Things could get interesting this Spring.
 
I doubt it. When Federer was threatening the record back in 2005(?) only Nadal was able to defeat him. Djokovic can lose to Nadal, Federer and Del Potro if they are on and he's below his current level which he will be at some point soon.
 
Mustard said:
Federer is 10-2 against Safin, 20-2 against Roddick and 17-8 against Hewitt. So overall, that's 47-12.[/QUOTE

Ya look at the weak opponents fed faced to rack up those numbers, big deal it just proves again how lucky he was to have such a weak field when he was in his prime.
Click to expand...
 
Get Your Facts Straight and your rulers out

Rickenbacker4003 said:
I doubt it. When Federer was threatening the record back in 2005(?) only Nadal was able to defeat him. Djokovic can lose to Nadal, Federer and Del Potro if they are on and he's below his current level which he will be at some point soon.
Click to expand...

Again the thread disintegrates to a "my favorite's d**k is bigger than your favorite's d**k." The OP was not an invitation to a Fedal debate. B O R I N G! The question: can JMac's record be challenged? Fedal both have 3 losses already and will not wind up playing more than 85 matches, let alone run the table. As for your contention that Nadal was the only one capable of beating Fed in 2005, only one of Fed's 4 losses that season was at the hands of the Majorcan. Can you name the other 3 victors?
 
MichaelNadal said:
Hype... it's a beautiful thing.

Oprahs-Bees.gif
Click to expand...

Awesomely fascinating gif. I know she's Oprah, but what's the meaning of all the "bees" stuff?
 
Looking like "hype" a little less each match!

*********s unite! Get your rulers out and your s**t-proofed anoraks on! Invade the thread and defend your heroes! Or, let's have a conversation about the feasibility of 82-3 or better in 2011. I say no, because you can't duck surface/conditions easily like Mac in '84. Less than 10 losses: yeah buddy. ND has scheduled a busy spring (MC, Belgrade, Madrid, Rome, FO). Deep runs in all 5 will put him in exhaust mode (more matches in 8 weeks than the 1st 3 months). A little slippage is to be expected. High 40's for wins, 2 to 3 losses entering grass. That's my guess.
 
MichaelNadal said:
Lol, that's a clip of when her audience found out they were all getting 2012 beetles, and someone edited it brilliantly!

[IMGhttp://www.automotiveaddicts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oprah-gives-away-2012-vw-beetle.jpg[/IMG
Click to expand...

Wow, didn't believe this until going to youtube. Those types of reactions over a car are kind of sad - but of course hilarious at the same time.

edit: ah it was Conan :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XcT49ms4yg&feature=related
 
Last edited:
The Plot Thickens

82-3 or better is looking a whole lot more feasible after the straight-set result today and the narrow escape yesterday. I'm not a fan of fate but it sure seems a higher power is in Novak's corner. Congrats and on to Roma!
 
No, Djokovic will have some loses around Queens, Wimbledon etc
 
Djokovic is playing great tennis right now. Certainly the best player in the world at this point. But Federer and McEnroe seemed invincible when they put those great years together. I just don't think that the players are that intimidated by Djokovic. They are not afraid of him. He will lose more than 3 matches this year.
 
pjonesy said:
Djokovic is playing great tennis right now. Certainly the best player in the world at this point. But Federer and McEnroe seemed invincible when they put those great years together. I just don't think that the players are that intimidated by Djokovic. They are not afraid of him. He will lose more than 3 matches this year.
Click to expand...

the are intimidated by him. his is a different kind of intimidation but I guarantee nobody wants to play him in a big match.
 
Toppling 82-3 is just that hard. As impressive as Djokovic's streak is, he's still far from it. And the hardest period is yet to come (Rome through Wimbledon). If somehow he only manages one loss through this period (which will be quite a surprise in itself)...then maybe...
 
Closer than Anyone Since 2005

viduka0101 said:
lol,he's not even close yet
Click to expand...

I too doubt he will make it but exactly who and how will he be beaten? I've read all these excuses for the first two victories over Ralph. What's the new one gonna be now that he was beaten on his favorite surface in his home country? Altitude? Heavy heart over Seve's death? Too much play? Worn out by the geriatric Fed? Did I give you enough choices? I can go on
 
decades said:
the are intimidated by him. his is a different kind of intimidation but I guarantee nobody wants to play him in a big match.
Click to expand...

Maybe nobody wants to play him right now. He is extremely hot at the moment. But let's see how he fares at the French and Wimbledon before we put him on the same level as Nadal or Federer (as far as the intimidation factor is concerned). Winning the Australian is one thing. Winning the French, Wimbledon or US Open is another. Once he adds one of those, his intimidation factor will increase in the eyes of his opponents. Right now he is not at that level. If he beats Nadal at the French and wins the tournament, it would be worth so much more than anything he has already accomplished. That is the kind of history and reputation he is facing when you consider what Nadal and Federer have done. Djokovic has to win another major in order to move into the bottom of the Nadal/Federer class. He is currently the best player in the world, but he has a way to go to touch their legacy. Its just a testament to how high the bar has been set. Not only are Nadal and Federer the 2 best overall players of the last 6 years, they may be the 2 best players in the history of the game. As long as those guys are still playing, Djokovic is facing their reputation, their tennis skill, their competitive desire and their legacy. Personally, I think he feels that playing Nadal and Federer in grand slams is the kind of opportunity he wants. If he takes out those guys on their best surfaces and favorite tournaments, he becomes the man. Then he becomes the hunted.
 
mellowyellow said:
Thats a good way to a law suit, you made me laugh so hard it hurt my side.....
Click to expand...

I will put it to you like this. Hewitt and Safin cemented their legacy by beating an aging Pete Sampras in the US Open final in '00 and '01. It made them much tougher to beat in the eyes of their opponents. It did not damage Sampras' legacy at all, because he had already done so much. Now i guess you are going to tell me that Sampras wouldn't have possibly been considered the greatest player of all time, in '00-'02(before federer's run).
 
Possible but unlikely.

The season is long...you never know what's going to happen.

Nadal on clay > Djokovic on clay

especially Rome and Paris clay.

Federer, Nadal on grass > Djokovic on grass

He may be the best hard courter right now but there are a lot of players whose best surface is hard e.g. Murray can give him problems.

We will see.
 
Most Impressive Run I Can Remember

I've been playing and following tennis for more than 40 years. I cannot remember a #3 or lower player pulling a trifecta off on both #1 and #2 players in the world. As impressive as the overall win streak is, the level of competition Nole has faced within the run is significant. To beat both superior ranked players 3 times each is an astounding feat!
 
pjonesy said:
Hewitt and Safin cemented their legacylegacy
Click to expand...
Its comments like these, I think in 10-15 years when these guys are forgotten about will prove their legacy. It just goes to show how little talent was coming through at that point. How players are/were payed too much money and their was a complete lack of drive in the sport especially then. It then continues into the majority of Fed's career. Only now are their 3 good players capable of winning a slam and that have the potential to beat the #1 who ever it may be, in a big moment. Everyone else is second best, no matter the surface. Back in Pete and Andre's time you could never have said that. There were many guys who could and would depending on the surface. Many "modern" fans don't appreciate the abundance competition from the late 80's into the early 2000's.
My personal opinion is that Djoko will take the #1 and then if and when he feels the need to take a break he will in some way shape or form. He is not a record chaser like Fed is. Has Djoko even played 80 matches in any year of his career?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Razer
IF a Tennis Season (Year end 1) is equated to a F1 Season (Drivers Championship) then ......
Replies
41
Views
963
Olli Jokinen
Olli Jokinen
Pheasant
Is Evert’s record on clay the most impressive run of dominance in WTA history?
2
Replies
63
Views
2K
BTURNER
B
Back
Top