Losses to Eventual Champion at a Grand Slam - Big 4 and Sampras

[Nonsense]

yeah and in that kind of form, he's not beating a prime fed ...



yeah, it was not good ..2015 came as a relief to be honest !

That was the fun thing about that rivalry... sometimes it felt like Nadal's bigger challenge was getting to Fed

Fed was playing some terrific tennis on hard courts in 2015... hadn't lost his serve before facing Djokovic or something ridiculous like that.

 

[abmk]

That was the fun thing about that rivalry... sometimes it felt like Nadal's bigger challenge was getting to Fed

Fed was playing some terrific tennis on hard courts in 2015... hadn't lost his serve before facing Djokovic or something ridiculous like that.

he didn't lose serve or a set in cincy at all.

But he did lose serve to kohlscreiber IIRC at the USO .

 

[Nonsense]

My point was meant to be more general ... Nadal, Sampras, Becker, Borg are all low on the list, while Lendl, Djokovic, Murray, Federer are high ... and in which group do you find the better big match players?

Which ones would you take? Big match but not so consistent v. consistent but lesser in big matches?

Because the 3 guys high on that list (Connors, Lendl, Federer) are 3 of the most consistent players of all time. And Novak will likely join their league unless he falls off a cliff.

And on another angle you could say that the guys high on the list are those whose average level is very good. Whereas the guys in the former group require them to play at their peak to even reach the latter levels in the first place?

Borg would be the one who is a bit of both. Average level very good as well as a big game player? Just that he left the sport before he could even get his numbers that high up.

I suppose if Fed had left the sport in 2007 after the USO, you'd call him a big match player as well? He'd have a record of 12-2 in slam finals...

In Fed's case, it is a case of one big match player playing another big match player on the latter's favorite surface half a dozen times when the other big match player already has a matchup advantage against the former.

Personally speaking, I love the consistent guys (Connors, Lendl, Federer) and hopefully Djokovic joins that list who year after year put themselves in the position to actually win those big titles. As opposed to the other set who are unbeatable in big finals but don't nearly reach them as often.

 

[Nonsense]

he didn't lose serve or a set in cincy at all.

But he did lose serve to kohlscreiber IIRC at the USO .

Cincy is really Fed's Masters. The one he has made his own.

Nadal has his at Rome and MC... Djokovic has his at Miami (though still tied with Agassi) & IW

And the rest they just squabble over.

 

[serve]

Which ones would you take? Big match but not so consistent v. consistent but lesser in big matches?

Because the 3 guys high on that list (Connors, Lendl, Federer) are 3 of the most consistent players of all time. And Novak will likely join their league unless he falls off a cliff.

And on another angle you could say that the guys high on the list are those whose average level is very good. Whereas the guys in the former group require them to play at their peak to even reach the latter levels in the first place?

Borg would be the one who is a bit of both. Average level very good as well as a big game player? Just that he left the sport before he could even get his numbers that high up.

I suppose if Fed had left the sport in 2007 after the USO, you'd call him a big match player as well? He'd have a record of 12-2 in slam finals...

In Fed's case, it is a case of one big match player playing another big match player on the latter's favorite surface half a dozen times when the other big match player already has a matchup advantage against the former.

Personally speaking, I love the consistent guys (Connors, Lendl, Federer) and hopefully Djokovic joins that list who year after year put themselves in the position to actually win those big titles. As opposed to the other set who are unbeatable in big finals but don't nearly reach them as often.

Federer is indeed a bit of an exception in this group, because his numbers are mainly so high due to his insane longevity. He is without doubt an outstanding big match player ... because of nadal he just does not get enough credit for that! Consider him the statistical outlier. I prefer the big match player myself but that is personal taste ...

 

[Nonsense]

Federer is indeed a bit of an exception in this group, because his numbers are mainly so high due to his insane longevity. He is without doubt an outstanding big match player ... because of nadal he just does not get enough credit for that! Consider him the statistical outlier. I prefer the big match player myself but that is personal taste ...

I think Fed, Nadal and Novak are big match players. But both a little less big match than Nadal is... what both of them have though is some insane consistency. Year after year they joined the annual lose to Nadal at RG procession as well haha.

In a way you could say Novak's numbers are so high because he ran into two big match players multiple times before he even reached his peak. Fed's kept up his end of the bargain and has met Novak a few times since his decline, but Rafa has not...

Having three of them at the same time has led to an amazing trivalry really. If Djokovic does continue his consistency, then he'll likely end up winning a few more slams yet, unless another Nadal like big game player rising from the ranks.

It could just happen that Novak and Fed both get dominated by the same guy in slams (4-9 & 2-9 h2h respectively) and yet come out on the other side as the two greater players overall.

 

[Nonsense]

Thanks!

That's a pretty heady stat for Djoker. Unlucky?

Wouldn't say unlucky... just the by-product of playing against two of the best of all time from the very start coupled with his consistency.

He'll end up with Lendl like numbers by the time he's done but will have significantly better resume. Also expect his numbers to fall off once he starts declining and losing in the QF and before...

 

[serve]

I think Fed, Nadal and Novak are big match players. But both a little less big match than Nadal is... what both of them have though is some insane consistency. Year after year they joined the annual lose to Nadal at RG procession as well haha.

In a way you could say Novak's numbers are so high because he ran into two big match players multiple times before he even reached his peak. Fed's kept up his end of the bargain and has met Novak a few times since his decline, but Rafa has not...

Having three of them at the same time has led to an amazing trivalry really. If Djokovic does continue his consistency, then he'll likely end up winning a few more slams yet, unless another Nadal like big game player rising from the ranks.

It could just happen that Novak and Fed both get dominated by the same guy in slams (4-9 & 2-9 h2h respectively) and yet come out on the other side as the two greater players overall.

Numbers-wise it is possible ... the h2h will never let the discussion end though

 

[serve]

Wouldn't say unlucky... just the by-product of playing against two of the best of all time from the very start coupled with his consistency.

He'll end up with Lendl like numbers by the time he's done but will have significantly better resume. Also expect his numbers to fall off once he starts declining and losing in the QF and before...

Might call that unlucky, but the last couple of years well and truly make up for that ... competition-wise Nadal is the unlucky one out of the big 3!

 

[Nonsense]

Might call that unlucky, but the last couple of years well and truly make up for that ... competition-wise Nadal is the unlucky one out of the big 3!

You could also say he was a bit lucky that one of his biggest rivals had a huge matchup problem with him... and his style of play is very demanding on his body anyway. I am a bit surprised he won as much as he did

Fed did get a bit lucky early in his career... Novak seems to have it later in his career. Both have capitalized on it.

 

[Russeljones]

Roddick was damn unlucky at Wimbledon and the USO.

You could make a case for everyone being unlucky in the 2004 - 2007 stretch.