Nadal comparison with Pete, Roger, Novak

Lew II said:
AO titles: Djokovic 8 > Federer 6 > Sampras 2 > Nadal 1
WI titles: Federer 8 > Sampras 7 > Djokovic 5 > Nadal 2
UO titles: Federer 5 = Sampras 5 > Nadal 4 > Djokovic 3
YEC titles: Federer 6 > Djokovic 5 = Sampras 5 > Nadal 0
#1 weeks: Federer 310 > Djokovic 286 = Sampras 286 > Nadal 209

Nadal trails in everything that is not RG.


What does it tell us?
Click to expand...

Djoker is #1 in one category, by 2, yet you believe he's had a perfect career. What does that tell us?

The weeks at #1 are misleading. Not every week at #1 is equal.

Multi-slam YE#1s:

Nadal - 5
Fed - 5
Pete - 4
Djoker- 4
 
Lew II said:
AO titles: Djokovic 8 > Federer 6 > Sampras 2 > Nadal 1
WI titles: Federer 8 > Sampras 7 > Djokovic 5 > Nadal 2
UO titles: Federer 5 = Sampras 5 > Nadal 4 > Djokovic 3
YEC titles: Federer 6 > Djokovic 5 = Sampras 5 > Nadal 0
#1 weeks: Federer 310 > Djokovic 286 = Sampras 286 > Nadal 209

What does it tell us?
Click to expand...

That Federer is #2, #1, #1, #1, #1 in the above.
 
Third Serve said:
That doesn't address his point.
Click to expand...
I cleared what I meant with my post. Federer is not the GOAT due to the slam h2h against both Djokovic and Nadal, not just with Djokovic.

Anyway they played 19 times before 2011 when Federer won 16 slams and Djokovic won only 1. In these matches Federer had a huge advantage.
 
Lew II said:
I cleared what I meant with my post. Federer is not the GOAT due to the slam h2h against both Djokovic and Nadal, not just with Djokovic.

Anyway they played 19 times before 2011 when Federer won 16 slams and Djokovic won only 1. In these matches Federer had a huge advantage.
Click to expand...
Very flawed metric because it counts Slams he won back in 2003-2005. How is this relevant to the Slams he won in 2008-2010 when they played many of their matches?

By that logic, you could argue (and I bet you would argue) that Fed is peak now because he has won 20 Slams. Using that logic, every player in the world improves over time.
 
Third Serve said:
Very flawed metric because it counts Slams he won back in 2003-2005. How is this relevant to the Slams he won in 2008-2010 when they played many of their matches?

By that logic, you could argue (and I bet you would argue) that Fed is peak now because he has won 20 Slams. Using that logic, every player in the world improves over time.
Click to expand...
Ok let me rephrase it. They played 19 matches in 2006-10 when Federer won 10 slams and Djokovic 1.

What do you think of the first part of my post? Can Federer be GOAT despite being 4-10 in Slam finals and 5-11 in Slam semis against his main rivals and direct GOAT contenders?
 
zagor said:
And that would have been even more the case in eras where there wasn't a concentrated effort to slow down surfaces/conditions across the board.

Conditions matter, if for example they used lighter balls at FO every year like they did in 2011 FO Fed would have been a tough obstacle for Nadal instead a routine win. Ditto for a guy like Lendl who had to serve and volley at Wimbledon to have a shot, I'm sure he would have loved to have played on modern grass with heavier balls.
Click to expand...
Clay is not like it was at FO 11 on red clay even though clay had faster types used in the 70s or so. Conditions matter but you judge them on this era........

You could debate the how he does in other eras forever.
 
Last edited:
MichaelNadal said:
This. He battled with the peakiest of peak Fed (and finally overcame him) and as soon as it was his time, Djokovic exploded. Had Nadal peaked in 2015, or Djokovic peaked in 2006 things would be different, but Rafa is the only one that caught someone biting both ends of the chili dog.
Click to expand...

nope.
fed had 2006, nadal had 2010, djokovic had 2015/16 in their prime years as relatively weak years
Nadal had cakewalks to the finals at the USO all 4 times.
nadal, djokovic both benefitted more from the failgen being so fail.
fed to some extent as well, but nowhere near as nadal/djokovic.
nadal won 5 slams from 2017 onwards, djokovic 5 slams, fed 3
 
Lew II said:
AO titles: Djokovic 8 > Federer 6 > Sampras 2 > Nadal 1
WI titles: Federer 8 > Sampras 7 > Djokovic 5 > Nadal 2
UO titles: Federer 5 = Sampras 5 > Nadal 4 > Djokovic 3
YEC titles: Federer 6 > Djokovic 5 = Sampras 5 > Nadal 0
#1 weeks: Federer 310 > Djokovic 286 = Sampras 286 > Nadal 209

Nadal trails in everything that is not RG.

What does it tell us?
Click to expand...

What are you comparing exactly? Different era - different surfaces, different strings, different balls but otherwise spot on:laughing:
 
abmk said:
nope.
fed had 2006, nadal had 2010, djokovic had 2015/16 in their prime years as relatively weak years
Nadal had cakewalks to the finals at the USO all 4 times.
nadal, djokovic both benefitted more from the failgen being so fail.
fed to some extent as well, but nowhere near as nadal/djokovic.
nadal won 5 slams from 2017 onwards, djokovic 5 slams, fed 3
Click to expand...
2007-2009 and 2011-2013 were the real best periods. Most else is debatable and depends on who you support.
 
RS said:
2007-2009 and 2011-2013 were the real best periods. Everything else is debatable and depends on who you support apart from 2nd part of 2016 to 2018.
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of many saying 04-05 was weak, it wasn't.
Also a bigger hypocrisy of not acknowledging nadal/djoko having fail gen as their next gen.
 
RS said:
2007-2009 and 2011-2013 were the real best periods. Most else is debatable and depends on who you support.
Click to expand...
Everything is debatable.

I think you shouldn't put 2015, which had Big4 and Wawrinka as the top5, on the same level of 2006 that had Davydenko, Blake and Ljubicic in the top5.
 
Last edited:
48f7915.gif
 
Lew II said:
@RS

ATGs in the top5:

2003 - 2
2004 - 1
2005 - 2
2006 - 2

2014 - 3
2015 - 4
2018 - 3
2019 - 3
Click to expand...
I never said much about those periods. I disagree Murray is a ATG as well and no idea why you consider 2015 Nadal a ATG as well.

Lew II said:
Everything is debatable.

I think you shouldn't put 2015, which had Big4 and Wawrinka as the top5, on the same level of 2006 that had Davydenko, Blake and Ljubicic in the top5.
Click to expand...
Did not comment on 15/06 maybe take this up with Fedfans but fine everything is debatable.

I think you are overstating 15 a bit though compared to some other years .
 
Last edited:
socallefty said:
I agree. But I give the OP credit that he at least tries to use stats to push his case for his favorite player being the GOAT. Everyone else spouts subjective opinions which they spout as if it is completely indisputable scientific fact. Reading the OP’s posts has illuminated many interesting facts for me over the years and I give him credit for putting in the time and effort to analyze tennis history to this level of detail. He gets a lot of abuse because it is easier to attack him than his Stats.

I also like all of the Big3 and feel that the OP’s obsession with proving that Novak is the GOAT seems weird to the level of being psychotic as he seems to feel that it can be proved like a mathematical theorem. All he ends up doing is proving that stats can be manipulated to support any argument if they are not treated with scientific rigor and peer review.
Click to expand...

OP "stats" are as subjective as every other subjective opinion.
cherry picking <> stats
 
Lew II said:
AO titles: Djokovic 8 > Federer 6 > Sampras 2 > Nadal 1
WI titles: Federer 8 > Sampras 7 > Djokovic 5 > Nadal 2
UO titles: Federer 5 = Sampras 5 > Nadal 4 > Djokovic 3
YEC titles: Federer 6 > Djokovic 5 = Sampras 5 > Nadal 0
#1 weeks: Federer 310 > Djokovic 286 = Sampras 286 > Nadal 209

Nadal trails in everything that is not RG.

What does it tell us?
Click to expand...

it tells us that school started and you have less time because of this
 
RS said:
Clay is not like it was at FO 11 on red clay even though clay had faster types used in the 70s or so. Conditions matter but you judge them on this era........

You could debate the how he does in other eras forever.
Click to expand...

So? Many debates on TTW are neverending.

Nadal's relative weakness when the ball stays low (as evidenced by his performance in indoor season and Wimbledon 1st week) hurts him in comparison with other greats for *me*. Majority people don't have to share my opinion, that's perfectly fine.
 
zagor said:
So? Many debates on TTW are neverending.

Nadal's relative weakness when the ball stays low (as evidenced by his performance in indoor season and Wimbledon 1st week) hurts him in comparison with other greats for *me*. Majority people don't have to share my opinion, that's perfectly fine.
Click to expand...
If that is how you see it fine. Nadal is usually not the good condition by the indoor swing though i do not think it is just the conditions itself even though that may br. His Wim 18 SF shows how underated he can be indoors when fit. But fair enough if that is your view i was a bit defensive.
 
win percentage:

Australian Open: Djokovic 90.4% > Federer 87.2% > Sampras 83.3% > Nadal 82.3%
Roland Garros: Nadal 97.9% > Djokovic 82.9% > Federer 80.4% > Sampras 64.9%
Wimbledon: Sampras 90.0% > Federer 88.6% > Djokovic 87.8% > Nadal 81.5%
US Open: Sampras 88.7% > Federer 86.4% > Djokovic 86.2% > Nadal 85.3%
YEC: Federer 77.6% > Djokovic 72.0% > Sampras 71.4% > Nadal 56.2%

That's basically why Nadal was #1 for a shorter time.
 
RS said:
Funny because most of tour is favouring Fed/Djokovic more than Nadal.
Click to expand...
It doesn't favour any of them more than the others. They each had the opportunity to design their game according to what would be the optimal for the current tour because it hasn't changed much since they all went pro (especially the slams). In fact, it hasn't changed much since they all started playing tennis. The fact that Federer and Djokovic's games suit the tour better can't be used as an excuse for Nadal.
 
Marfrilau said:
It doesn't favour any of them more than the others. They each had the opportunity to design their game according to what would be the optimal for the current tour because it hasn't changed much since they all went pro (especially the slams). In fact, it hasn't changed much since they all started playing tennis. The fact that Federer and Djokovic's games suit the tour better can't be used as an excuse for Nadal.
Click to expand...
Look at the moaning posts by Fed fans it was a counter response.
 
Start da Game said:
1. clay is taken for granted for nadal

2. probably the greatest champion at uso along with pete
Click to expand...
Nadal is the greatest USO champion “along with Pete.” :-D

Fed has 5 straight titles there and spectacularly unmentioned is Connors. He not only has 5 USO’s, but he won them on three different surfaces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lew II
Positive h2h at 10/5+ matches
Replies
48
Views
3K
Deleted member 763691
D
Hitman
What happened when Nadal didn't finish Djokovic off at Wimbledon 2018 when he had the chance
2 3
Replies
129
Views
6K
SonnyT
S
D
  • Poll Poll
Karatsev to become the most efficient Grand Slam player of all-time
Replies
27
Views
2K
catskillthunder
catskillthunder
Sport
Big 3 vs. Agassi at the USO. A statistical comparison
Replies
45
Views
2K
jl809
jl809
Djokodalerer31
  • Poll Poll
Pistol Pete or Djoker??
2 3 4
Replies
169
Views
10K
Djokodalerer31
Djokodalerer31
Back
Top