Most wins over ATGs - Federer had none of the best 24 seasons

[Lew II]

Most wins over ATGs (10+ Slam finalists) in a season:

1) 1984 McEnroe 17
2) 1985 Lendl 16
3) 1970 Laver / 2015 Djokovic 15
5) 1987 Lendl 13
6) 1979 Borg 12 / 1989 Becker 12 / 1990 Edberg 12
9) 2011 Djokovic 12
10) 1971 Laver / 1986 Becker 11 / 1995 Agassi 11 / 2008 Nadal 11
14) 1969 Laver 10
15) 1970 Rosewall 9 / 1989 Edberg 9 / 1994 Sampras 9 / 2007 Nadal 9
19) 1980 Borg / 1987 Edberg / 1988 Becker / 1989 Lendl / 1991 Courier / 1995 Sampras / 2012 Djokovic / 2014 Djokovic 8

Federer's best season (7 wins in 2010) is at #27 place (EDITED) , tied with other seasons.

 

[Nadal_Django]

That's really bad...

 

[MichaelNadal]

That's really bad...

He couldn't play himself

 

[Backspin1183]

Alright. McEnroe is the GOAT.

 

[Lew II]

He couldn't play himself

He played 129 matches against ATGs in his career yet he couldn't win more than 7 of them in a season...

 

[blablavla]

2007 Nadal 9

wasn't 2007 weak era?

how can it be weak era, and then boast so many matches between ATGs (10+ Slam finalists)?

 

[blablavla]

He played 129 matches against ATGs in his career yet he couldn't win more than 7 of them in a season...

let me guess, he played 129 matches vs ATGs that were at least 6 years older than he is?

could you for example expand:
Becker age in 1986 and the age of the ATGs he defeated in 1986?
Becker age in 1989 and the age of the ATGs he defeated in 1989?
Nadal age in 2007 and the age of the ATGs he defeated in 2007?

you know, just asking for a friend

 

[junior74]

Not sure why he is even referred to as a rival.

 

[jondice]

Wouldn't a much more telling stat show the winning percentage over ATGs for a given year rather than total wins?

For instance, winning 7 of 8 matches is arguably more impressive than winning 11 of 20.

 

[blablavla]

Wouldn't a much more telling stat show the winning percentage over ATGs for a given year rather than total wins?

For instance, winning 7 of 8 matches is arguably more impressive than winning 11 of 20.

just like defeating someone who is older and past physical prime shouldn't be considered as difficult as defeating an ATG who is younger and in the years of physical prime

 

[blablavla]

Most wins over ATGs (10+ Slam finalists) in a season:

1) 1984 McEnroe 17
2) 1985 Lendl 16
3) 1970 Laver / 2015 Djokovic 15
5) 1987 Lendl 13
6) 1979 Borg 12 / 1989 Becker 12 / 1990 Edberg 12
9) 2011 Djokovic 12
10) 1971 Laver / 1986 Becker 11 / 1995 Agassi 11 / 2008 Nadal 11
14) 1969 Laver 10
15) 1970 Rosewall 9 / 1989 Edberg 9 / 1994 Sampras 9 / 2007 Nadal 9
19) 1980 Borg / 1987 Edberg / 1988 Becker / 1989 Lendl / 1995 Sampras / 2012 Djokovic / 2014 Djokovic 8

Federer's best season (7 wins in 2010) is at #26 place (EDITED) , tied with other seasons.

so @Lew II you are saying that 1984 was the real GOAT era, right?
then the GOAT shall be considered as one of the players active in 1984?
perhaps McEnroe who has the most wins over fellow ATGs players?

P.S.
thank you for confirming that 2016 - 2020 and still counting is a weak era.
can't find any of these years in your stats

 

[Username_]

tomic also didn't show up in any of the years federer and nadal didn't
tomic better than djokovic

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

just like defeating someone who is older and past physical prime shouldn't be considered as difficult as defeating an ATG who is younger and in the years of physical prime

You came here wanting nuance? GL, son. RF should rope some old champions out of retirement and get to rigging some draws.

 

[blablavla]

You came here wanting nuance? GL, son. RF should rope some old champions out of retirement and get to rigging some draws.

lol, no.
it's enough to take some losers out of retirement.
did you notice how Lew tried to interchange ATGs with sore losers? aka weak era mugs?

in this thread, an ATG is someone who reached 10+ GS finals.
so theoretically, a weak era mug and pigeon Roddick would classify as an ATG if he would reach more GS finals, even losing all of them.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

lol, no.
it's enough to take some losers out of retirement.
did you notice how Lew tried to interchange ATGs with sore losers? aka weak era mugs?

in this thread, an ATG is someone who reached 10+ GS finals.
so theoretically, a weak era mug and pigeon Roddick would classify as an ATG if he would reach more GS finals, even losing all of them.

We all know valuing wins over Roddick would give Fed too much credit. Only 13 weeks at no.1, 1 slam, 4 other finals and 5 other semifinals? Get this weaponless mug outta here. He was probably crap in 03-06 anyway so might as well ignore that period.

 

[beard]

Wouldn't a much more telling stat show the winning percentage over ATGs for a given year rather than total wins?

For instance, winning 7 of 8 matches is arguably more impressive than winning 11 of 20.

That stat won't be good for Federer...

 

[Lew II]

Wouldn't a much more telling stat show the winning percentage over ATGs for a given year rather than total wins?

For instance, winning 7 of 8 matches is arguably more impressive than winning 11 of 20.

But there must be a minimum of matches played.

 

[Druss]

OP states wins over 10+ slam finalists - to include Murray, thus inflating Djoker's credentials. Hmmm something smells fishy if you ask me.

PS: Murray is an excellent player, but he is no an ATG.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Wouldn't a much more telling stat show the winning percentage over ATGs for a given year rather than total wins?

For instance, winning 7 of 8 matches is arguably more impressive than winning 11 of 20.

in that case, Mac in 84 is the clear winner. 17/18, 94%

 

[Lew II]

OP states wins over 10+ slam finalists - to include Murray, thus inflating Djoker's credentials. Hmmm something smells fishy if you ask me.

PS: Murray is an excellent player, but he is no an ATG.

Ok let's write off Murray (who is an ATG for me, anyway):

2011 Djokovic 10
2015 Djokovic 9
2008 Nadal 8
2007 Nadal 7
2013 Nadal 7

 

[The_Order]

He played 129 matches against ATGs in his career yet he couldn't win more than 7 of them in a season...

What's his career record vs ATGs?

 

[blablavla]

What's his career record vs ATGs?

older or younger at the moment of the match?
when the older ATG is outside physical prime and ending years of career?
when the younger ATG is in the physical prime and career prime?

 

[Lew II]

older or younger at the moment of the match?
when the older ATG is outside physical prime and ending years of career?
when the younger ATG is in the physical prime and career prime?

Federer dealt with Big4 better in 2014-19 than he did in 2004-09. Age has nothing to do with his h2h.

 

[blablavla]

Federer dealt with Big4 better in 2014-19 than he did in 2004-09. Age has nothing to do with his h2h.

right.
But Sir Andy isn't an ATG based on number of GS won.
otherwise, we would need to include matches vs Wawrinka, and others in your calculation

H2H vs Novak.
7 - 13 during 2014 - 2020
9 - 5 during 2004 - 2009

of course 2014 - 2020 is a better stat than 2004 - 2009.
in this case the player ranked #100 is doing better than the player ranked #1

what changed, is the dynamics in the matches between Fed and Nadal, but Nadal doesn't have that insane speed anymore, that allowed him to retreat would be winners, and not simply retreat but send them back with interest.
I guess, Nadal speed is decreasing because age is just a number.
I need to go and inform my grandpa that age is just a number.

 

[pj80]

wasn't 2007 weak era?

how can it be weak era, and then boast so many matches between ATGs (10+ Slam finalists)?

2007 was strong...fed, rafa and nole all playing strong plus murry and roddick still solid.

 

[pj80]

Federer dealt with Big4 better in 2014-19 than he did in 2004-09. Age has nothing to do with his h2h.

Fed was much sharper in 2014-2017 then 2004-2007

 

[Phoenix1983]

Most wins over ATGs (10+ Slam finalists) in a season:

Murray isn't an ATG.

 

[blablavla]

Fed was much sharper in 2014-2017 then 2004-2007

right.
I guess his record of 250 weeks at #1 was set during 2014 - 2017?
or did that happen in the Wonderland?

 

[pj80]

right.
I guess his record of 250 weeks at #1 was set during 2014 - 2017?
or did that happen in the Wonderland?

Things got a bit tougher for Fedex once Djokodal came along. But to his credit Fed did improve his level but not enough to dominate like he did in the Roddick era

 

[blablavla]

Things got a bit tougher for Fedex once Djokodal came along. But to his credit Fed did improve his level but not enough to dominate like he did in the Roddick era

dominate?
he didn't dominate after 2010.
the fact that he won some GS titles and got to #1 in ranking is simply a testimony to the failed generations, which allowed Djokodal to feast.

While Roddick, along with Safin and Hewitt were fierce competitors.
so kudos to anyone being able to break them mentally.

 

[pj80]

dominate?
he didn't dominate after 2010.
the fact that he won some GS titles and got to #1 in ranking is simply a testimony to the failed generations, which allowed Djokodal to feast.

While Roddick, along with Safin and Hewitt were fierce competitors.
so kudos to anyone being able to break them mentally.

Lol

 

[Third Serve]

I can see this being a competition argument but I don’t know if it quite makes sense when you’re talking about Federer’s overall level.

 

[blablavla]

Lol

I'll join your Lol once you show me the youngsters that reached #1 or #2 in ranking at the age of 18-22 years old, that were defeated by Djokodal.
or at least folks that at 18-22 years old won GS and subsequently were mentally destroyed by Djokodal.

otherwise, you'll have to deal with Djokodal being the biggest vultures, as there is ZERO competition from younger ATGs to them.

 

[terribleIVAN]

Not being Fed's advocate here, but there's no warranty one will even have the opportunity to meet ATGs at the time of one's peak.

It's totally independent from you, whether you would like it or not.

Since Nadal, Novak and Murray monopolised all the slam finalist spots for +14 years, there was no one to beat besides them.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Murray isn't dan ATG.

Without question.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

May we see the seasons based on wins vs younger generation ATGs?

 

[RaulRamirez]

This is an ATB (All-Time Boring) thread, but...McEnroe ...McEnGoat ?...was a beast at his best.

 

[Breakpointerer]

Alright. McEnroe is the GOAT.

Nuff said, no excuses
We can terminate TTW now

 

[Bamoos]

Which ATG level opponent did Djokovic beat in 2015?

 

[blablavla]

Which ATG level opponent did Djokovic beat in 2015?

bery stronk opponents, that reached at least 10 GS finals.
so Novak is the mightiest player humanity has ever seen.

you have to believe, not question.

 

[Bamoos]

Things got a bit tougher for Fedex once Djokodal came along. But to his credit Fed did improve his level but not enough to dominate like he did in the Roddick era

But before 2014, Federer led every h2h stat against Djokovic.

You’re saying Federer improved in 2014, but Djokovic improved even more?

LOL

 

[Lew II]

May we see the seasons based on wins vs younger generation ATGs?

If you care about it, do it yourself.

I don't. Look at Federer: he improved his h2h since 2014. He's the perfect example that young age is not an advantage.

 

[Bamoos]

bery stronk opponents, that reached at least 10 GS finals.
so Novak is the mightiest player humanity has ever seen.

you have to believe, not question.

2015 Federer counted as an “ATG win” despite failing to win more than 1 set at his two best prime slams (Wimbledon + USO)

2015 Murray counted as an ATG win

Easy number to pull out for these trolls, also fall apart under minor scrutiny.

 

[blablavla]

But before 2014, Federer led every h2h stat against Djokovic.

You’re saying Federer improved in 2014, but Djokovic improved even more?

LOL

what they are saying, is that at some point players improve so much, that they start losing.
but losing simply because they are too good and nobody understands this, and nobody can appreciate this

 

[blablavla]

If you care about it, do it yourself.

I don't. Look at Federer: he improved his h2h since 2014. He's the perfect example that young age is not an advantage.

please excuse us, mere mortals, oh master of statistics.

as we don't know which players were included in your calculations, we can't slice it down.
this is where we, mere mortals and plebs, need your help sensei.

 

[Bamoos]

If you care about it, do it yourself.

I don't. Look at Federer: he improved his h2h since 2014. He's the perfect example that young age is not an advantage.

Improved his H2H against Murray who declined after back surgery and Nadal who lost a lot of his physical attributes that troubled peak Federer. He also only played Nadal on clay once compared to what, 14 times before 2014.

Novak played the same style all the way through. Measure Fed’s results against him pre and post 2014. 6-5 at slams to 0-6.

Quite easy to take apart your numbers with basic analysis lol.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

If you care about it, do it yourself.

I don't.

You relish finding out statistics about ATGs and the Big 3 in particular, why wouldn't you care about finding out that particular one?

 

[blablavla]

2015 Federer counted as an “ATG win” despite failing to win more than 1 set at his two best prime slams (Wimbledon + USO)

2015 Murray counted as an ATG win

Easy number to pull out for these trolls, also fall apart under minor scrutiny.

exactly.

and I already pointed out another fallacy.
Nadal 2007 has so many defeats over ATGs, yet 2007 is a weak era.
doesn't make sense, right?

just like, let's think which fellow ATGs could be defeated by Nadal during 2007-2008, could baby Novak be one of those folks?
but it is baby Novak, and wins over baby Novak don't count when discussing Fed, so why would they matter when talking about Nadal?
if we take baby Nadal vs baby Novak matches, then we could go further and add their matches during their junior years

 

[Bamoos]

what they are saying, is that at some point players improve so much, that they start losing.
but losing simply because they are too good and nobody understands this, and nobody can appreciate this

They use simplistic thinking, like lumping “big 4 h2h” all together without any separate analysis of each individual h2h.

Fed improved his h2h against Nadal because 1. They played mostly on HC + grass instead of clay, and 2. Nadal lost some of his insane speed and defence
Murray ... they played on at Federer’s best events and he was never the same player post 2013. As well as older Fed’s variety matching up better than his younger baseline version.

 

[Bamoos]

Imagine thinking Federer played his best tennis in his 30s, but he couldn’t beat Djokovic because “Novak too good, BOAT, highest peak ever” etc

Can’t decide if this is worse than the 04-07 weak era trolling.