Nadal faced the very best of Federer at Wimbledon than Djokovic ever did

Federev

Legend
What fluke RG are you talking about? The next year Fed was straight setted in 2012 by Novak itself, the peak version of Novak at RG is 2013, Fed himself did not beat Peak Novak at RG and that 1 loss in between some 40+ streak was just a bad day in office. You are reading too much into that nonsense RG11, end of the day Novak is superior to Federer on Clay .... 6 rome opens vs 0 .... 2 frenchs vs 1 fluke french won due to soderling ....

Wimbledon is the only place when Fed wont be affected but his Aus opens vanish with Novak peaking early.


Why stop at “fluke” RG?

How about :

Fluke in RG ‘11 followed by fluke USO ‘11 match points followed by fluke Wim ‘12 (followed by fluke Cincy ‘12 while we’re at it!)

I guess it’s like I said to you a while back on this thread:

Numbers matter according to the argument you’re trying to make. Maybe when we don’t like the numbers we can just say “fluke”?

For the record, you’re the first person I’ve ever read calling RG’11 a fluke. Fed had made the finals and semis for years and even won it ‘09,

Novak didn’t win it till 2016 …but ‘11 was a “fluke”?

I’ll leave it here for tonight. I need to try to get some work done.

Enjoy your records!
 
Last edited:

nolefam_2024

G.O.A.T.
Fn-JdCfaQAA07xs
I hope Novak soon becomes green in all categories. 237 is not big enough record to offset so much green.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Nope. I disagree. Age and peak stage relative to others matters. Novak’s H2H against Fed is clealry informed by their ages and the fact that Fed played most is his career at a significant age disadvantage to Novak. You can chart it.

But you already know my arguments.

I’m going to try to be done with this back and forth for tonight.

Enjoy your records!
If peak stage relative to others matter, then Djokovic is still clearly ahead of Nadal. Only Federer is comparable but neither held all 4 Slams and the ATP Finals at the same time, so he still has an edge in that department. Whether Federer had an age disadvantage against Djokovic is irrelevant since he had many years before Djokovic matured as a player. If anything, Federer should have done more in those weak years of 2001-2003. That coupled with terrible losses in big 5 set matches against Djokovic, Nadal and other players is why Djokovic surpassed him. Yea we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
 

SonnyT

Legend
Well…

He beat Novak at WB in 2012. Novak was #1 and defending champ.

He beat Novak at RG in 2011, he was just a few weeks from #1.

But your point is kind of mine. These guys never dominated the other in their respective best years.
But Novak came back against Roger in UO '11. What got me wasn't any mention of Fed's Achilles heel: if Fed and Djoko were even physically, Djoko would come out on top, because he's stronger mentally! If you don't agree with that, I don't know what to say! We saw time and again Fed's weakness.

And Novak came back against Roger in W '14. Fedfans' argument that Fed's game was easy on the body, so Roger's game shouldn't decline at all between '12 and '14.
 

CHillTennis

Hall of Fame
Big Titles won in BO5 Finals

01. Federer - 31 (Retired at 41 due to great age shift)
02. Nadal - 28
03. Sampras - 27 (Retired at 31 because of his era)
04. Djokovic - 23
05. Lendl - 22
06. Borg - 20
07. Becker - 20
08. Mcenroe - 19
09. Laver - 18
10. Agassi - 17

So Roger played 10 more years and is only narrowly ahead of Pete ? Do you accept that Roger should be below Pete ?

This metric is very unfair for Djokovic as the masters 1000s finals were BO5 up until 2009.

Djokovic's first important title came in 2007.

Where as Roger and Rafa were winning them several years before.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
What will be the slam count if everyone of all time is born together ?
The thing here is that when all players need to go through each other in sequence, random chance plays a lot larger of a role than if the top 5 of all time played against their original contemporaries. (I.e. if you made a slam with the top 128 players of all time, random upsets could much more easily happen since human beings only have so much skill in their bodies - R1s would be much more dangerous and unseeded players could quite often win slams in that scenario).

With that in mind, you'd have to account for that and it would cause much more chaos than you expect.

Then you account for surface changes, what surface we're considering, matchups and seedings... it gets messy. You could do a very rough estimate in the best case scenario. Only because you have repeated trials, eventually the most likely case will happen. Not to mention being born at the same time advantages early peakers and late peakers. Those in the average are most negatively affected. Then there's consistency over long time frames (a la Federer from age 23 to 36). I can't be sure what part of that is natural and what part is due to medical advances, so I will attribute it all to the players. This might advantage more recent players. Additionally, if all players are born at the same time, they may specialize in different areas or will be more comfortable with certain surfaces/playstyles. I also can't account for that.

And I won't even get into pre-Open players, but if I did, then all of my below figures are only going down. So this is really a best-case scenario for the players I list, and I'm only listing commonly-accepted ATGs. And I'll pretty much be taking their tournaments in their respective years against one another. No matchup advantage/disadvantage or anything. Just results against the competition of their time.

Without that, I bet it'd be something like
AO: Djokovic slight lead (3-4 slams) over Federer/Agassi (2-3 slams) over everyone else (0-1 slams)
RG: Nadal (6), Borg (2-3), Lendl/Djokovic (1-2), everyone else (0-1)
WIM: Sampras/Federer (3ish), Borg/Becker/McEnroe (2ish), Djokovic/Connors/Edberg (1-2)
USO: Federer/Sampras/Connors (2-3), McEnroe/Nadal/Djokovic/Agassi/Lendl (1-2), Edberg/Wilander (0-1).
But that all just ends up being pure speculation. Let's take real numbers into it.

Reached future/current ATG status at
16-19: Nadal, Borg, Wilander.
20-23: Federer, Sampras, Connors, McEnroe.
24-27: Djokovic, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Laver.
28-31: Agassi.
32+:

So let's make a decent key.
19232731
Djokovic2006201020142018
Nadal2005200920132017
Federer2000200420082012
Sampras1990199419982002
Agassi1989199319972001
Becker1986199019941998
Edberg1985198919931997
Wilander1983198719911995
Lendl1979198319871991
McEnroe1978198219861990
Borg1975197919831987
Connors1971197519791983

(Year they turn) 18AgassiBorg d. WilanderBecker d. McEnroeAgassi
19Agassi d. BorgBorg d. NadalBeckerSampras
20McEnroe d. EdbergNadal d. DjokovicBorg d. McEnroe/NadalMcEnroe d. Djokovic
21Djokovic d. McEnroeNadal d. WilanderMcEnroe d. Borg/NadalMcEnroe d. Sampras
22McEnroe d. LendlNadal d. BorgThis one is insane...
Sampras d. Federer? Could be like 5 different people.
Connors d. McEnroe
23Federer d. NadalBorg d. Wilander/ConnorsBorg d. Sampras?Federer d. Lendl
24Djokovic d. FedererBorg d. NadalFederer d. Djokovic/Sampras/Becker/Edberg/ConnorsLots of contenders... Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Wilander, Connors. No idea. Let's say Wilander to ruffle fewest feathers.
25Djokovic d. FedererNadal d. LendlMcEnroe d. BorgEdberg d. McEnroe
26Connors d. Federer (very tough year)Lendl d. NadalSampras d. FedererLendl d. Connors
27Edberg d. Djokovic (much easier year)Nadal d. LendlSampras d. FedererNadal d. Lendl
28Federer d. DjokovicNadal d. FedererFederer d. SamprasDjokovic d. Lendl
29Federer d. LendlDjokovic d. AgassiSampras d. AgassiAgassi d. Federer
30Connors d. AgassiFederer d. ConnorsConnorsConnors d. Sampras
31Connors d. NadalNadal d. ConnorsFederer d. DjokovicSampras d. Connors
32Djokovic d. ConnorsNadal d. ConnorsNadal d. DjokovicConnors d. Agassi
33Agassi d. Nadal Djokovic d. NadalFederer d. NadalNadal d. Connors (could probably go either way)
34Djokovic d. AgassiNadal d. DjokovicFederer d. DjokovicFederer d. Djokovic
35Federer d. ConnorsDjokovic d. ConnorsDjokovic d. FedererDjokovic d. Connors


Djokovic11 (5 AO, 3 RG, 1 WIM, 2 USO)
Nadal12 (0 AO, 9 RG, 1 WIM, 2 USO)
Federer12 (4 AO, 1 RG, 5 WIM, 2 USO)
Sampras6 (0 AO, 0 RG, 4 WIM, 2 USO)
Agassi5 (3 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 2 USO)
Becker2 (0 AO, 0 RG, 2 WIM, 0 USO)
Edberg2 (1 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
Wilander1 (0 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
Lendl2 (0 AO, 1 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
McEnroe6 (2 AO, 0 RG, 2 WIM, 2 USO)
Borg6 (0 AO, 4 RG, 2 WIM, 0 USO)
Connors7 (3 AO, 0 RG, 1 WIM, 3 USO)

Some extra caveats: Those who did well at the AO might be slightly inflated. If a player played the AO before it was considered as prestigious, they'd often lose. However, I still had to use this tournament rather than the equivalent USO tournament when possible. As such, modern players who performed well at the AO got a slight boost there I think.

There was also a bit of luck involved (say age 30 at Wimbledon, where only really Connors stood a chance). As such some incredibly strong years got matched up (USO Djokovic 2011, Nadal 2010, Federer 2005, Sampras 1995, Agassi 1994, Connors 1976) while some years had very little in terms of competition.

The salient factors:
  1. Length of career - The Big 3 with a huge lead, followed by Connors. Opposite end of the spectrum - Wilander, Edberg, Becker.
  2. Peak level rewarded more than consistency - Play "good enough to beat the field and the B+ level of my rivals" and it's likely another ATG has you beat for this year. Play out of your mind every 3 years and you do great. (Djokovic had few grass matches on the level of the greatest ever, but evened it out with consistency, but that's not rewarded in his Wimbledon numbers).
  3. More unique pet slams are rewarded.
    1. USO, having 5 players with 4+ titles, has no one here with more than 3. And only 1 person with more than 2, despite 6 people having 2 titles).
    2. Conversely, RG with its 2 players with 4+ titles, has still 2 players with 4+ titles in this hypothetical. Nadal only loses about 30% of his RG titles compared to Djokovic who loses 50% of his AOs or Sampras/Federer who lose 60% of their USOs.
My biases also probably play a big role in this. I imagine I'm undervaluing the "lesser" ATGs in their matches, so when I put up say Edberg in his USOs against Connors, I lean toward Connors simply because Connors is one of the title record holders there and Edberg isn't.
 

Razer

Legend
The thing here is that when all players need to go through each other in sequence, random chance plays a lot larger of a role than if the top 5 of all time played against their original contemporaries. (I.e. if you made a slam with the top 128 players of all time, random upsets could much more easily happen since human beings only have so much skill in their bodies - R1s would be much more dangerous and unseeded players could quite often win slams in that scenario).

With that in mind, you'd have to account for that and it would cause much more chaos than you expect.

Then you account for surface changes, what surface we're considering, matchups and seedings... it gets messy. You could do a very rough estimate in the best case scenario. Only because you have repeated trials, eventually the most likely case will happen. Not to mention being born at the same time advantages early peakers and late peakers. Those in the average are most negatively affected. Then there's consistency over long time frames (a la Federer from age 23 to 36). I can't be sure what part of that is natural and what part is due to medical advances, so I will attribute it all to the players. This might advantage more recent players. Additionally, if all players are born at the same time, they may specialize in different areas or will be more comfortable with certain surfaces/playstyles. I also can't account for that.

And I won't even get into pre-Open players, but if I did, then all of my below figures are only going down. So this is really a best-case scenario for the players I list, and I'm only listing commonly-accepted ATGs. And I'll pretty much be taking their tournaments in their respective years against one another. No matchup advantage/disadvantage or anything. Just results against the competition of their time.

Without that, I bet it'd be something like
AO: Djokovic slight lead (3-4 slams) over Federer/Agassi (2-3 slams) over everyone else (0-1 slams)
RG: Nadal (6), Borg (2-3), Lendl/Djokovic (1-2), everyone else (0-1)
WIM: Sampras/Federer (3ish), Borg/Becker/McEnroe (2ish), Djokovic/Connors/Edberg (1-2)
USO: Federer/Sampras/Connors (2-3), McEnroe/Nadal/Djokovic/Agassi/Lendl (1-2), Edberg/Wilander (0-1).
But that all just ends up being pure speculation. Let's take real numbers into it.

Reached future/current ATG status at
16-19: Nadal, Borg, Wilander.
20-23: Federer, Sampras, Connors, McEnroe.
24-27: Djokovic, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Laver.
28-31: Agassi.
32+:

So let's make a decent key.
19232731
Djokovic2006201020142018
Nadal2005200920132017
Federer2000200420082012
Sampras1990199419982002
Agassi1989199319972001
Becker1986199019941998
Edberg1985198919931997
Wilander1983198719911995
Lendl1979198319871991
McEnroe1978198219861990
Borg1975197919831987
Connors1971197519791983

(Year they turn) 18AgassiBorg d. WilanderBecker d. McEnroeAgassi
19Agassi d. BorgBorg d. NadalBeckerSampras
20McEnroe d. EdbergNadal d. DjokovicBorg d. McEnroe/NadalMcEnroe d. Djokovic
21Djokovic d. McEnroeNadal d. WilanderMcEnroe d. Borg/NadalMcEnroe d. Sampras
22McEnroe d. LendlNadal d. BorgThis one is insane...
Sampras d. Federer? Could be like 5 different people.
Connors d. McEnroe
23Federer d. NadalBorg d. Wilander/ConnorsBorg d. Sampras?Federer d. Lendl
24Djokovic d. FedererBorg d. NadalFederer d. Djokovic/Sampras/Becker/Edberg/ConnorsLots of contenders... Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Wilander, Connors. No idea. Let's say Wilander to ruffle fewest feathers.
25Djokovic d. FedererNadal d. LendlMcEnroe d. BorgEdberg d. McEnroe
26Connors d. Federer (very tough year)Lendl d. NadalSampras d. FedererLendl d. Connors
27Edberg d. Djokovic (much easier year)Nadal d. LendlSampras d. FedererNadal d. Lendl
28Federer d. DjokovicNadal d. FedererFederer d. SamprasDjokovic d. Lendl
29Federer d. LendlDjokovic d. AgassiSampras d. AgassiAgassi d. Federer
30Connors d. AgassiFederer d. ConnorsConnorsConnors d. Sampras
31Connors d. NadalNadal d. ConnorsFederer d. DjokovicSampras d. Connors
32Djokovic d. ConnorsNadal d. ConnorsNadal d. DjokovicConnors d. Agassi
33Agassi d. NadalDjokovic d. NadalFederer d. NadalNadal d. Connors (could probably go either way)
34Djokovic d. AgassiNadal d. DjokovicFederer d. DjokovicFederer d. Djokovic
35Federer d. ConnorsDjokovic d. ConnorsDjokovic d. FedererDjokovic d. Connors


Djokovic11 (5 AO, 3 RG, 1 WIM, 2 USO)
Nadal12 (0 AO, 9 RG, 1 WIM, 2 USO)
Federer12 (4 AO, 1 RG, 5 WIM, 2 USO)
Sampras6 (0 AO, 0 RG, 4 WIM, 2 USO)
Agassi5 (3 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 2 USO)
Becker2 (0 AO, 0 RG, 2 WIM, 0 USO)
Edberg2 (1 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
Wilander1 (0 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
Lendl2 (0 AO, 1 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
McEnroe6 (2 AO, 0 RG, 2 WIM, 2 USO)
Borg6 (0 AO, 4 RG, 2 WIM, 0 USO)
Connors7 (3 AO, 0 RG, 1 WIM, 3 USO)

You have not factored great age shift for Big 3, the previous era greats have not been given any benefit of doubt of having longer careers. It is laughable to think that Sampras collects 2 US opens while Novak of all people will also collect 2 there, bull, fed and pete's pigeon andre all collect 2 each ....

Then you have given Federer 4 AOs and Agassi 3 AOs while Novak only gets 5 ? That means Novak will sit and watch 7 AOs go past him ?

In real life this is not how it happens, in real life better players end up with same resume as inferior player in the presence of a much superior player, like for example Murray has same number of AOs as david ferrer ... 0 ... why ? because Djokovic never allowed the distinction between Murray and Ferrer to become visible as he took it all. Sameway Fed, Agassi cannot take away 7 titles from Novak while he wins 5, they are not that good, they both combined will have to fight for some 2-3 titles in their best years while Novak takes home the lion's share ... i'e 70-80% of the titles available because he is that much better than them....
 

LaVie en Rose

Hall of Fame
The insecurity of some people is astonishing
Those immature people simply don't know better way to cope
This metric is very unfair for Djokovic as the masters 1000s finals were BO5 up until 2009.

Djokovic's first important title came in 2007.

Where as Roger and Rafa were winning them several years before.
Djokovic actually won last Masters final played in bo5 ,Miami 2007
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
You have not factored great age shift for Big 3, the previous era greats have not been given any benefit of doubt of having longer careers. It is laughable to think that Sampras collects 2 US opens while Novak of all people will also collect 2 there, bull, fed and pete's pigeon andre all collect 2 each ....

Then you have given Federer 4 AOs and Agassi 3 AOs while Novak only gets 5 ? That means Novak will sit and watch 7 AOs go past him ?

In real life this is not how it happens, in real life better players end up with same resume as inferior player in the presence of a much superior player, like for example Murray has same number of AOs as david ferrer ... 0 ... why ? because Djokovic never allowed the distinction between Murray and Ferrer to become visible as he took it all. Sameway Fed, Agassi cannot take away 7 titles from Novak while he wins 5, they are not that good, they both combined will have to fight for some 2-3 titles in their best years while Novak takes home the lion's share ... i'e 70-80% of the titles available because he is that much better than them....
Yeah, there are many caveats in what I did. I just took the most scientific approach by taking say Becker age 19 vs Sampras age 19 vs Federer age 19 in their respective tournaments and seeing how well they did, then determining which of those was most impressive based on their result and who they beat.

I couldn't exactly factor in medical advances keeping players healthy longer because then how much longer would each player play for? I also doubt Borg would've flamed out so fast, so now I just need to invent an entire 2nd half of his career? It's incredibly tough to say. You could just speculate, but in any case it's nearly guaranteed that there would be almost no one who dominates.

Sampras in reality collected 5 US Opens, but he'd need to go up against people with multiple US Opens from the QFs in every single edition (9 other players have 2+ USOs). If he has even a 65% chance (which is very high) of winning each of his QF (against Agassi/Djokovic/Nadal/Lendl), SF (against McEnroe/Connors/Federer), and F (another McEnroe/Connors/Federer), that's only a 27% chance of winning the whole thing. And that's not even taking into account early losses, which accounted for 40% of his US Opens in reality. So even in the best case for Sampras at the USO over a 16 year career, you would expect around 2-3 US Opens. It's the fact that all these people are very skilled, so the chance of an "upset" is much higher.

Even if Novak is a better AO player than Agassi or Federer, I disagree that Novak would completely push them down. Even if Djokovic could win 70% of his matches against both of them (which would be incredibly impressive to do), he'd only have a 49% chance of getting through both of them in the SF/F. Not to mention any other players he'd need to beat before that. Djokovic also lost pre-SF about 40% of the time at the AO against non-ATG competition. Assuming a similar thing happens against ATG competition, Djokovic would only win about 30% of the AOs. In a 16 year career, that's about 5. I'm not dissing Novak or anyone else, it's just the realities of the math when it comes down to a battle between ATGs. Even in the best case you don't get ungodly amounts of slams.

The one exception being Nadal at RG simply because he doesn't lose early. With 4 times he failed to make the final out of 18 RGs, he's got just about a 20% early loss rate. Then in the final, let's assume it's Borg every single time. Even against Borg, he's bound to win somewhere around 65% of the time (and even if you think that's a bit much, keep in mind it won't always be Borg. Sometimes it will be Wilander/Lendl/Djokovic, so his number should increase off them). Meaning Nadal wins something around 50% of all the RGs. Giving 8. If you want to use a slightly bigger number (75% win rate in finals against Borg or another RG ATGs), then he wins closer to 9.
 

Razer

Legend
Yeah, there are many caveats in what I did. I just took the most scientific approach by taking say Becker age 19 vs Sampras age 19 vs Federer age 19 in their respective tournaments and seeing how well they did, then determining which of those was most impressive based on their result and who they beat.

I couldn't exactly factor in medical advances keeping players healthy longer because then how much longer would each player play for? I also doubt Borg would've flamed out so fast, so now I just need to invent an entire 2nd half of his career? It's incredibly tough to say. You could just speculate, but in any case it's nearly guaranteed that there would be almost no one who dominates.

Sampras in reality collected 5 US Opens, but he'd need to go up against people with multiple US Opens from the QFs in every single edition (9 other players have 2+ USOs). If he has even a 65% chance (which is very high) of winning each of his QF (against Agassi/Djokovic/Nadal/Lendl), SF (against McEnroe/Connors/Federer), and F (another McEnroe/Connors/Federer), that's only a 27% chance of winning the whole thing. And that's not even taking into account early losses, which accounted for 40% of his US Opens in reality. So even in the best case for Sampras at the USO over a 16 year career, you would expect around 2-3 US Opens. It's the fact that all these people are very skilled, so the chance of an "upset" is much higher.

Even if Novak is a better AO player than Agassi or Federer, I disagree that Novak would completely push them down. Even if Djokovic could win 70% of his matches against both of them (which would be incredibly impressive to do), he'd only have a 49% chance of getting through both of them in the SF/F. Not to mention any other players he'd need to beat before that. Djokovic also lost pre-SF about 40% of the time at the AO against non-ATG competition. Assuming a similar thing happens against ATG competition, Djokovic would only win about 30% of the AOs. In a 16 year career, that's about 5. I'm not dissing Novak or anyone else, it's just the realities of the math when it comes down to a battle between ATGs. Even in the best case you don't get ungodly amounts of slams.

The one exception being Nadal at RG simply because he doesn't lose early. With 4 times he failed to make the final out of 18 RGs, he's got just about a 20% early loss rate. Then in the final, let's assume it's Borg every single time. Even against Borg, he's bound to win somewhere around 65% of the time (and even if you think that's a bit much, keep in mind it won't always be Borg. Sometimes it will be Wilander/Lendl/Djokovic, so his number should increase off them). Meaning Nadal wins something around 50% of all the RGs. Giving 8. If you want to use a slightly bigger number (75% win rate in finals against Borg or another RG ATGs), then he wins closer to 9.

I disagree with the Sampras part, I think he will dominate the Big 3 at the last 2 slams of the year, but I appreciate your analyzing the entire thing in depth. You are right, we will now have to add an entire second career for Borg, Mcenroe, it is beyond the realm of analysis and enters the realm of fantasy.
 
D

Deleted member 779124

Guest
that's kind of you towards him. Him bringing up cherrypicked stats does not make his point. fed was getting hammered from the baseline in Wim 14 final (bar the 4th set) and lost a lot of points as stats would show in Wim 14. See below.
obviously not too many UEs off the ground as Federer was playing safe. the winner count obviously coming from serve +net play+some putaways from the ground.

its a shameless loser's propaganda to say fed in Wim 14 final wasn't much worse than fed in Wim 07 final.
a crappy opinion like that isn't worth anything.

Here, Wim 14 final, gap of 25 points which had a return (3+ shot points). that's big.



In Wim 12 semi: 3+ shots, federer was up by 2. (+2)
Even in Wim 15 final 3+ shots, federer was down by only 4 (-4)
Nice stats breakdown there. 2015 comes off very well here but Federer didn't serve as well as 2014 IMHO as a counter point.
 

Federev

Legend
The thing here is that when all players need to go through each other in sequence, random chance plays a lot larger of a role than if the top 5 of all time played against their original contemporaries. (I.e. if you made a slam with the top 128 players of all time, random upsets could much more easily happen since human beings only have so much skill in their bodies - R1s would be much more dangerous and unseeded players could quite often win slams in that scenario).

With that in mind, you'd have to account for that and it would cause much more chaos than you expect.

Then you account for surface changes, what surface we're considering, matchups and seedings... it gets messy. You could do a very rough estimate in the best case scenario. Only because you have repeated trials, eventually the most likely case will happen. Not to mention being born at the same time advantages early peakers and late peakers. Those in the average are most negatively affected. Then there's consistency over long time frames (a la Federer from age 23 to 36). I can't be sure what part of that is natural and what part is due to medical advances, so I will attribute it all to the players. This might advantage more recent players. Additionally, if all players are born at the same time, they may specialize in different areas or will be more comfortable with certain surfaces/playstyles. I also can't account for that.

And I won't even get into pre-Open players, but if I did, then all of my below figures are only going down. So this is really a best-case scenario for the players I list, and I'm only listing commonly-accepted ATGs. And I'll pretty much be taking their tournaments in their respective years against one another. No matchup advantage/disadvantage or anything. Just results against the competition of their time.

Without that, I bet it'd be something like
AO: Djokovic slight lead (3-4 slams) over Federer/Agassi (2-3 slams) over everyone else (0-1 slams)
RG: Nadal (6), Borg (2-3), Lendl/Djokovic (1-2), everyone else (0-1)
WIM: Sampras/Federer (3ish), Borg/Becker/McEnroe (2ish), Djokovic/Connors/Edberg (1-2)
USO: Federer/Sampras/Connors (2-3), McEnroe/Nadal/Djokovic/Agassi/Lendl (1-2), Edberg/Wilander (0-1).
But that all just ends up being pure speculation. Let's take real numbers into it.

Reached future/current ATG status at
16-19: Nadal, Borg, Wilander.
20-23: Federer, Sampras, Connors, McEnroe.
24-27: Djokovic, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Laver.
28-31: Agassi.
32+:

So let's make a decent key.
19232731
Djokovic2006201020142018
Nadal2005200920132017
Federer2000200420082012
Sampras1990199419982002
Agassi1989199319972001
Becker1986199019941998
Edberg1985198919931997
Wilander1983198719911995
Lendl1979198319871991
McEnroe1978198219861990
Borg1975197919831987
Connors1971197519791983

(Year they turn) 18AgassiBorg d. WilanderBecker d. McEnroeAgassi
19Agassi d. BorgBorg d. NadalBeckerSampras
20McEnroe d. EdbergNadal d. DjokovicBorg d. McEnroe/NadalMcEnroe d. Djokovic
21Djokovic d. McEnroeNadal d. WilanderMcEnroe d. Borg/NadalMcEnroe d. Sampras
22McEnroe d. LendlNadal d. BorgThis one is insane...
Sampras d. Federer? Could be like 5 different people.
Connors d. McEnroe
23Federer d. NadalBorg d. Wilander/ConnorsBorg d. Sampras?Federer d. Lendl
24Djokovic d. FedererBorg d. NadalFederer d. Djokovic/Sampras/Becker/Edberg/ConnorsLots of contenders... Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Wilander, Connors. No idea. Let's say Wilander to ruffle fewest feathers.
25Djokovic d. FedererNadal d. LendlMcEnroe d. BorgEdberg d. McEnroe
26Connors d. Federer (very tough year)Lendl d. NadalSampras d. FedererLendl d. Connors
27Edberg d. Djokovic (much easier year)Nadal d. LendlSampras d. FedererNadal d. Lendl
28Federer d. DjokovicNadal d. FedererFederer d. SamprasDjokovic d. Lendl
29Federer d. LendlDjokovic d. AgassiSampras d. AgassiAgassi d. Federer
30Connors d. AgassiFederer d. ConnorsConnorsConnors d. Sampras
31Connors d. NadalNadal d. ConnorsFederer d. DjokovicSampras d. Connors
32Djokovic d. ConnorsNadal d. ConnorsNadal d. DjokovicConnors d. Agassi
33Agassi d. NadalDjokovic d. NadalFederer d. NadalNadal d. Connors (could probably go either way)
34Djokovic d. AgassiNadal d. DjokovicFederer d. DjokovicFederer d. Djokovic
35Federer d. ConnorsDjokovic d. ConnorsDjokovic d. FedererDjokovic d. Connors


Djokovic11 (5 AO, 3 RG, 1 WIM, 2 USO)
Nadal12 (0 AO, 9 RG, 1 WIM, 2 USO)
Federer12 (4 AO, 1 RG, 5 WIM, 2 USO)
Sampras6 (0 AO, 0 RG, 4 WIM, 2 USO)
Agassi5 (3 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 2 USO)
Becker2 (0 AO, 0 RG, 2 WIM, 0 USO)
Edberg2 (1 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
Wilander1 (0 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
Lendl2 (0 AO, 1 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
McEnroe6 (2 AO, 0 RG, 2 WIM, 2 USO)
Borg6 (0 AO, 4 RG, 2 WIM, 0 USO)
Connors7 (3 AO, 0 RG, 1 WIM, 3 USO)

Some extra caveats: Those who did well at the AO might be slightly inflated. If a player played the AO before it was considered as prestigious, they'd often lose. However, I still had to use this tournament rather than the equivalent USO tournament when possible. As such, modern players who performed well at the AO got a slight boost there I think.

There was also a bit of luck involved (say age 30 at Wimbledon, where only really Connors stood a chance). As such some incredibly strong years got matched up (USO Djokovic 2011, Nadal 2010, Federer 2005, Sampras 1995, Agassi 1994, Connors 1976) while some years had very little in terms of competition.

The salient factors:
  1. Length of career - The Big 3 with a huge lead, followed by Connors. Opposite end of the spectrum - Wilander, Edberg, Becker.
  2. Peak level rewarded more than consistency - Play "good enough to beat the field and the B+ level of my rivals" and it's likely another ATG has you beat for this year. Play out of your mind every 3 years and you do great. (Djokovic had few grass matches on the level of the greatest ever, but evened it out with consistency, but that's not rewarded in his Wimbledon numbers).
  3. More unique pet slams are rewarded.
    1. USO, having 5 players with 4+ titles, has no one here with more than 3. And only 1 person with more than 2, despite 6 people having 2 titles).
    2. Conversely, RG with its 2 players with 4+ titles, has still 2 players with 4+ titles in this hypothetical. Nadal only loses about 30% of his RG titles compared to Djokovic who loses 50% of his AOs or Sampras/Federer who lose 60% of their USOs.
My biases also probably play a big role in this. I imagine I'm undervaluing the "lesser" ATGs in their matches, so when I put up say Edberg in his USOs against Connors, I lean toward Connors simply because Connors is one of the title record holders there and Edberg isn't.
Wow.

You put a lot of thought into that!
 

Federev

Legend
Why did Nadal stop winning titles at Wimbledon once he stopped facing the ‘best of Federer’?

Well, he won 2010.

Federer’s very best years at Wimbledon we’re passed at that point.

I think he also peaked very early on grass. He was making finals by 2006 v Fed. Was he even 20 years old? Playing absolutely brilliant in 2007-2008. Injured in 2009 and Winning again in 2010.

But 6 years after his first final he’s losing to Darci and Rosol and Brown and a young Kyrgios.

That was a sign - i think - that the surface wasn’t very kind to his body. In his very young years of invincible youth his body could brush it off and repair the damage.

But by 2012 he’d been on tour for over a decade and his body couldn’t quite handle the wear and tear - especially after the rigors of a long and victorious clay season.

That’s my best take.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nice stats breakdown there. 2015 comes off very well here but Federer didn't serve as well as 2014 IMHO as a counter point.

yes, obviously, Federer served better in Wim 14 final compared to Wim 15 final. But my point was to show the significant difference between Djokovic&Federer in the 3+ shot rallies/from the baseline in the Wim 14 final. (which wasn't the case in Wim 12 semi and even Wim 15 final)
 

_phantom

Hall of Fame
The thing here is that when all players need to go through each other in sequence, random chance plays a lot larger of a role than if the top 5 of all time played against their original contemporaries. (I.e. if you made a slam with the top 128 players of all time, random upsets could much more easily happen since human beings only have so much skill in their bodies - R1s would be much more dangerous and unseeded players could quite often win slams in that scenario).

With that in mind, you'd have to account for that and it would cause much more chaos than you expect.

Then you account for surface changes, what surface we're considering, matchups and seedings... it gets messy. You could do a very rough estimate in the best case scenario. Only because you have repeated trials, eventually the most likely case will happen. Not to mention being born at the same time advantages early peakers and late peakers. Those in the average are most negatively affected. Then there's consistency over long time frames (a la Federer from age 23 to 36). I can't be sure what part of that is natural and what part is due to medical advances, so I will attribute it all to the players. This might advantage more recent players. Additionally, if all players are born at the same time, they may specialize in different areas or will be more comfortable with certain surfaces/playstyles. I also can't account for that.

And I won't even get into pre-Open players, but if I did, then all of my below figures are only going down. So this is really a best-case scenario for the players I list, and I'm only listing commonly-accepted ATGs. And I'll pretty much be taking their tournaments in their respective years against one another. No matchup advantage/disadvantage or anything. Just results against the competition of their time.

Without that, I bet it'd be something like
AO: Djokovic slight lead (3-4 slams) over Federer/Agassi (2-3 slams) over everyone else (0-1 slams)
RG: Nadal (6), Borg (2-3), Lendl/Djokovic (1-2), everyone else (0-1)
WIM: Sampras/Federer (3ish), Borg/Becker/McEnroe (2ish), Djokovic/Connors/Edberg (1-2)
USO: Federer/Sampras/Connors (2-3), McEnroe/Nadal/Djokovic/Agassi/Lendl (1-2), Edberg/Wilander (0-1).
But that all just ends up being pure speculation. Let's take real numbers into it.

Reached future/current ATG status at
16-19: Nadal, Borg, Wilander.
20-23: Federer, Sampras, Connors, McEnroe.
24-27: Djokovic, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Laver.
28-31: Agassi.
32+:

So let's make a decent key.
19232731
Djokovic2006201020142018
Nadal2005200920132017
Federer2000200420082012
Sampras1990199419982002
Agassi1989199319972001
Becker1986199019941998
Edberg1985198919931997
Wilander1983198719911995
Lendl1979198319871991
McEnroe1978198219861990
Borg1975197919831987
Connors1971197519791983

(Year they turn) 18AgassiBorg d. WilanderBecker d. McEnroeAgassi
19Agassi d. BorgBorg d. NadalBeckerSampras
20McEnroe d. EdbergNadal d. DjokovicBorg d. McEnroe/NadalMcEnroe d. Djokovic
21Djokovic d. McEnroeNadal d. WilanderMcEnroe d. Borg/NadalMcEnroe d. Sampras
22McEnroe d. LendlNadal d. BorgThis one is insane...
Sampras d. Federer? Could be like 5 different people.
Connors d. McEnroe
23Federer d. NadalBorg d. Wilander/ConnorsBorg d. Sampras?Federer d. Lendl
24Djokovic d. FedererBorg d. NadalFederer d. Djokovic/Sampras/Becker/Edberg/ConnorsLots of contenders... Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Wilander, Connors. No idea. Let's say Wilander to ruffle fewest feathers.
25Djokovic d. FedererNadal d. LendlMcEnroe d. BorgEdberg d. McEnroe
26Connors d. Federer (very tough year)Lendl d. NadalSampras d. FedererLendl d. Connors
27Edberg d. Djokovic (much easier year)Nadal d. LendlSampras d. FedererNadal d. Lendl
28Federer d. DjokovicNadal d. FedererFederer d. SamprasDjokovic d. Lendl
29Federer d. LendlDjokovic d. AgassiSampras d. AgassiAgassi d. Federer
30Connors d. AgassiFederer d. ConnorsConnorsConnors d. Sampras
31Connors d. NadalNadal d. ConnorsFederer d. DjokovicSampras d. Connors
32Djokovic d. ConnorsNadal d. ConnorsNadal d. DjokovicConnors d. Agassi
33Agassi d. NadalDjokovic d. NadalFederer d. NadalNadal d. Connors (could probably go either way)
34Djokovic d. AgassiNadal d. DjokovicFederer d. DjokovicFederer d. Djokovic
35Federer d. ConnorsDjokovic d. ConnorsDjokovic d. FedererDjokovic d. Connors


Djokovic11 (5 AO, 3 RG, 1 WIM, 2 USO)
Nadal12 (0 AO, 9 RG, 1 WIM, 2 USO)
Federer12 (4 AO, 1 RG, 5 WIM, 2 USO)
Sampras6 (0 AO, 0 RG, 4 WIM, 2 USO)
Agassi5 (3 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 2 USO)
Becker2 (0 AO, 0 RG, 2 WIM, 0 USO)
Edberg2 (1 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
Wilander1 (0 AO, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
Lendl2 (0 AO, 1 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO)
McEnroe6 (2 AO, 0 RG, 2 WIM, 2 USO)
Borg6 (0 AO, 4 RG, 2 WIM, 0 USO)
Connors7 (3 AO, 0 RG, 1 WIM, 3 USO)

Some extra caveats: Those who did well at the AO might be slightly inflated. If a player played the AO before it was considered as prestigious, they'd often lose. However, I still had to use this tournament rather than the equivalent USO tournament when possible. As such, modern players who performed well at the AO got a slight boost there I think.

There was also a bit of luck involved (say age 30 at Wimbledon, where only really Connors stood a chance). As such some incredibly strong years got matched up (USO Djokovic 2011, Nadal 2010, Federer 2005, Sampras 1995, Agassi 1994, Connors 1976) while some years had very little in terms of competition.

The salient factors:
  1. Length of career - The Big 3 with a huge lead, followed by Connors. Opposite end of the spectrum - Wilander, Edberg, Becker.
  2. Peak level rewarded more than consistency - Play "good enough to beat the field and the B+ level of my rivals" and it's likely another ATG has you beat for this year. Play out of your mind every 3 years and you do great. (Djokovic had few grass matches on the level of the greatest ever, but evened it out with consistency, but that's not rewarded in his Wimbledon numbers).
  3. More unique pet slams are rewarded.
    1. USO, having 5 players with 4+ titles, has no one here with more than 3. And only 1 person with more than 2, despite 6 people having 2 titles).
    2. Conversely, RG with its 2 players with 4+ titles, has still 2 players with 4+ titles in this hypothetical. Nadal only loses about 30% of his RG titles compared to Djokovic who loses 50% of his AOs or Sampras/Federer who lose 60% of their USOs.
My biases also probably play a big role in this. I imagine I'm undervaluing the "lesser" ATGs in their matches, so when I put up say Edberg in his USOs against Connors, I lean toward Connors simply because Connors is one of the title record holders there and Edberg isn't.
So everyone's titles at each slam decreases but Djokovic's RG count increases?

Is it because you think his main nemesis Nadal would be knocked out by some other clay ATG? But Djokovic won't?
 

Garro

Rookie
Nope.

My statistics are pretty clear - Fed‘s serve was the best in 2012. having an unreturned serve percentage of 44% almost guarantees you a match - especially if the opponent is not know for his serve but his return.

Now if we look at the rallies won by length. Djokovic actually has the edge in the 7-9 and 10+ rallies. Federer was just better in the 4-7 rallies. So you can’t really say Fed was better from the baseline. Moreover, What we have to take into account here is that great serving impacts rally. If you just dominating on your serve you can play more confident and freely the rallies. On the flipside, if your opponent is serve botting you get frustrated and play more tight.

You could make an argument either way as to where Fed was serving best.

Yes 2012 Fed has a higher unreturned %, but this was an indoor match.
In 2014 Fed is serving at a higher % (69.3 vs 64.4) and is actually winning a higher % of his 1st serves (76.7 vs 75.4) in spite of him not winning as many of the baselines rallies and not playing under the roof.

But the point is, Fed was also indisputably returning better and playing better from the baseline...than he was in 2014.
"Serve-botting" would seem to imply that a player only wins a match, or comes close to winning a match because of his serve, correct?

This is what we see in 2014, not 12. In the 2014 match Fed is doing worse in every metric if he doesn't get his first serve in: 44.1% second serves won is basically terrible for Fed, and so is only winning 34.8% of the Djokovic second serve.
Someone else already posted the stat that confirms this: Djokovic won 25 more points in 3+ shot rallies opposed to being only +4 up in 2015 and -2 in 2012.

As for great serving impacting rally? Sometimes it works out that way - and sometimes it doesn't. Perfect example of where this doesn't happen in the 2009 Wimbledon final.
Federer was winning more cheap points against Roddick than in any other match - but only edging him out slightly in the longer rallies.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
So everyone's titles at each slam decreases but Djokovic's RG count increases?

Is it because you think his main nemesis Nadal would be knocked out by some other clay ATG? But Djokovic won't?
No. Check the years I put Djokovic as the winner. 29, 33, 35. By that point, Borg was long gone. Lendl made his last RG QF at 28. Wilander hadn't made an RG R3 in years. Kuerten (if we were counting him) was well past it. All the other ATGs weren't really on the same level on clay, and almost all of them were on the verge of retirement if not already. The salient ATGs remaining would be Agassi, Connors, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic. Already you see that there's a much smaller pool of contenders. It's possible that by rearranging years you can end up with someone who lost and their opponent is removed from the timeline (if we had age 17 on the board, Boris Becker would've probably won Wimbledon against his age 17 contemporaries.)

However, I do think you caught a mistake I made during the hours I spent putting this together. I think when I was picking the winners in those years I was computing 2020 Djokovic vs 2021 Nadal and 2022 Djokovic vs 2023 Nadal (who withdrew - also why I had to pick Connors for the finalist) when I should've been doing the opposite. 2020 Djokovic vs 2019 Nadal and 2022 Djokovic vs 2021 Nadal. In light of that, here's my amendments. I think I probably had it right on the age 27 season so here's 28-35:

28: 2015 Djokovic vs 1998 Agassi, 2014 Nadal, 2009 Federer, 1980 Connors (Really tough one here. As a Djokovic fan, I want to pick him, but let's say Nadal d. Djokovic)
29: 2016 Djokovic vs 1999 Agassi, 2015 Nadal, 2010 Federer, 1981 Connors (Agassi/Connors stop being relevant) (Djokovic d. Agassi)
30: 2017 Djokovic vs 2016 Nadal, 2011 Federer (Federer d. Connors/Djokovic)
31: 2018 Djokovic vs 2017 Nadal, 2012 Federer (Nadal d. Federer)
32: 2019 Djokovic vs 2018 Nadal, 2013 Federer (Nadal d. Djokovic)
33: 2020 Djokovic vs 2019 Nadal, 2014 Federer (Nadal d. Djokovic)
34: 2021 Djokovic vs 2020 Nadal, 2015 Federer (Nadal d. Djokovic)
35: 2022 Djokovic vs 2021 Nadal (This is also tough, but injured Nadal. Djokovic d. Nadal)

2016 Djokovic beats 2015 Nadal for obvious reasons. 2010 Federer went out to Soderling in the QF. Not bad, but it was a relatively straightforward 4 setter. By comparison, Djokovic lost only 2 sets that whole tournament and handily beat Murray in the final, who beat last year's winner Wawrinka in 4 in the SF. Connors' run was very unimpressive. Only Agassi was really considerable. Agassi, however, beat a qualifier in the QF, an unseeded player in the SF (in 4 sets), and was taken to 5 sets (down 0-2) to an unseeded Andrei Medvedev. 2016 Djokovic, I think is a fair winner.

So yeah, I think you caught a mistake. But moving forward (if Nadal doesn't play any more RGs), Djokovic would have his only competitor be 2019 & 2021 Federer, so even if Djokovic ends up with say SFs/Fs in 2024, 2025, 2026 (assuming he plays that long) then he'll be the "winner" here in 5 RGs despite having fewer RGs in reality. That's simply because his career is extremely long compared to other ATGs.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You could make an argument either way as to where Fed was serving best.

Yes 2012 Fed has a higher unreturned %, but this was an indoor match.
In 2014 Fed is serving at a higher % (69.3 vs 64.4) and is actually winning a higher % of his 1st serves (76.7 vs 75.4) in spite of him not winning as many of the baselines rallies and not playing under the roof.

But the point is, Fed was also indisputably returning better and playing better from the baseline...than he was in 2014.
"Serve-botting" would seem to imply that a player only wins a match, or comes close to winning a match because of his serve, correct?

This is what we see in 2014, not 12. In the 2014 match Fed is doing worse in every metric if he doesn't get his first serve in: 44.1% second serves won is basically terrible for Fed, and so is only winning 34.8% of the Djokovic second serve.
Someone else already posted the stat that confirms this: Djokovic won 25 more points in 3+ shot rallies opposed to being only +4 up in 2015 and -2 in 2012.

As for great serving impacting rally? Sometimes it works out that way - and sometimes it doesn't. Perfect example of where this doesn't happen in the 2009 Wimbledon final.
Federer was winning more cheap points against Roddick than in any other match - but only edging him out slightly in the longer rallies.

Good post. You've covered most of the points.
I'll add this:
Federer broke Djokovic once in 1st set, once in 3rd set and once in 4th set (had BP chances in multiple games in 3rd and 4th set) in Wim 12 semi.
Only set in which federer returned worth a damn or hit worth a damn from the baseline in Wim 14 final was the 4th set. That was the only set in which Federer broke in Wim 14 final.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
2010 Federer went out to Soderling in the QF. Not bad, but it was a relatively straightforward 4 setter.

It wasn't relatively straight-forward. Soderling had to save SP at 4-5,30-40 in the 3rd set with an excellent BH smash.
Federer had hit an amazing smash of a smash and soderling had to pull out an amazing, clutch BH smash to save himself

point starting at 12:24


conditions were damp, heavy and perfect for a peaking Soderling's game. It nearly went 5.

I'd say Djokovic in RG 16 was only a little better than Federer in RG 10. A start/nerves like the one vs Murray in RG 16 final could prove to be costly. Of course Djokovic started playing well from 2nd set onwards, but Murray completely collapsed. So its tough to assess exactly how Djokovic would have done vs quality opposition.

Only Agassi was really considerable. Agassi, however, beat a qualifier in the QF, an unseeded player in the SF (in 4 sets), and was taken to 5 sets (down 0-2) to an unseeded Andrei Medvedev. 2016 Djokovic, I think is a fair winner.

See above for Fed RG 2010. More than considerable.

Regarding RG 99, Andrei Medvedev was playing excellent tennis in RG 99 including beating prime Kuerten in straights (in windy conditions). Agassi also beat defending champion Moya in 4 sets.
Hrbaty could be a tricky customer at times and he played well vs Agassi in RG 99.
Djokovic in RG 16 was better than Agassi in RG 99, but lets not put down what happened in RG 99.

28: 2015 Djokovic vs 1998 Agassi, 2014 Nadal, 2009 Federer, 1980 Connors (Really tough one here. As a Djokovic fan, I want to pick him, but let's say Nadal d. Djokovic)

Federer of RG 09 QF-F > Djokovic of RG 15 QF-F.
Both GOATed in one match each - fed in the final vs Sod, djoko in the QF vs nadal
federer played an excellent match in the QF vs Monfils. djoko played a little better than good, but not excellent vs Murray in the semi
federer played well enough to beat a red hot delpo in the SF, djoko lost to a similar red hot wawa in 4 sets.

obvious later rounds fed RG 09 takes this.
yes, fed did struggle vs Acusaso in 2R and vs Haas in 4R (thanks to pressure of Nadal upset), but had raised his level for QF-F.
 
Last edited:

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
It wasn't relatively straight-forward. Soderling had to save SP at 4-5,30-40 in the 3rd set with an excellent BH smash.
Federer had hit an amazing smash of a smash and soderling had to pull out an amazing, clutch BH smash to save himself

point starting at 12:24


conditions were damp, heavy and perfect for a peaking Soderling's game. It nearly went 5.

I'd say Djokovic in RG 16 was only a little better than Federer in RG 10. A start/nerves like the one vs Murray in RG 16 final could prove to be costly. Of course Djokovic started playing well from 2nd set onwards, but Murray completely collapsed. So its tough to assess exactly how Djokovic would have done vs quality opposition.



See above for Fed RG 2010. More than considerable.

Regarding RG 99, Andrei Medvedev was playing excellent tennis in RG 99 including beating prime Kuerten in straights (in windy conditions). Agassi also beat defending champion Moya in 4 sets.
Hrbaty could be a tricky customer at times and he played well vs Agassi in RG 99.
Djokovic in RG 16 was better than Agassi in RG 99, but lets not put down what happened in RG 99.



Federer of RG 09 QF-F > Djokovic of RG 15 QF-F.
Both GOATed in one match each - fed in the final vs Sod, djoko in the QF vs nadal
federer played an excellent match in the QF vs Monfils. djoko played a little better than good, but not excellent vs Murray in the semi
federer played well enough to beat a red hot delpo in the SF, djoko lost to a similar red hot wawa in 4 sets.

obvious later rounds fed RG 09 takes this.
yes, fed did struggle vs Acusaso in 2R and vs Haas in 4R (thanks to pressure of Nadal upset), but had raised his level for QF-F.
Yes, Soderling saved SP and it nearly went 5 but nonetheless we compare a Federer who was even/slightly worse than Soderling, who went 5 with Berdych, and lost in straights to Nadal in the final to Djokovic - who lost a total of 2 sets the entire tournament. Perhaps your definition of a little is different than mine. I would say Djokovic played at least a little better than Soderling, who himself was at least a little better than Federer. At this point it's a game of semantics though.

It's also a strange take to compare Fed v Monfils to Djokovic v Murray as if the opponent quality is the same. They are not. Monfils had 1 RG SF by that point while Murray had 3. If you count QFs, it's 2 to 4. Murray had won a clay masters that same year while Monfils had played a single match on clay that year before RG. Then there's the Wawrinka/Delpo comparison. He was showing great stuff on the clay earlier that year and put on a fantastic performance, but you can't just say because 1 person plays amazing tennis they're automatically equivalent to another. In their last slam meeting (AO09), Federer double-bageled Delpo. Delpo had never won a set against him. He was in his first slam SF.

By comparison, Stan had already won a slam by beating both Novak and Nadal. He and Novak had played 3 5-setters in recent slams. Not to mention he was already a Monte Carlo champion. Clearly Wawrinka RG 2015 is another beast compared to 09 RG Delpo. Djokovic wouldn't have lost to 09 RG Delpo if 2015 Novak was in Federer's shoes. Federer might've beaten Wawrinka in 2015 but that's because he's got a matchup advantage there.

So I still disagree with you, but you've got your reasons to believe what you do and I respect them. We won't convince each other. Nonetheless it doesn't matter. The question is who gets to lose to 2014 Nadal. It's definitely no badge of honor.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yes, Soderling saved SP and it nearly went 5 but nonetheless we compare a Federer who was even/slightly worse than Soderling, who went 5 with Berdych, and lost in straights to Nadal in the final to Djokovic - who lost a total of 2 sets the entire tournament. Perhaps your definition of a little is different than mine. I would say Djokovic played at least a little better than Soderling, who himself was at least a little better than Federer. At this point it's a game of semantics though.
Soderling played better in the 4R vs Cilic and QF vs fed than in semi vs berdych.
no worse than Djoko in RG 16.

It's also a strange take to compare Fed v Monfils to Djokovic v Murray as if the opponent quality is the same. They are not. Monfils had 1 RG SF by that point while Murray had 3. If you count QFs, it's 2 to 4. Murray had won a clay masters that same year while Monfils had played a single match on clay that year before RG.

not the same, but not a big difference either.
how does that change that federer played considerably better in the 2009 QF vs Monfils than djoko did in the SF vs Murray in RG 15 SF? Losing 1 set is perfectly fine, but losing 2 is a clear fall in form.

Then there's the Wawrinka/Delpo comparison. He was showing great stuff on the clay earlier that year and put on a fantastic performance, but you can't just say because 1 person plays amazing tennis they're automatically equivalent to another. In their last slam meeting (AO09), Federer double-bageled Delpo. Delpo had never won a set against him. He was in his first slam SF. By comparison, Stan had already won a slam by beating both Novak and Nadal. He and Novak had played 3 5-setters in recent slams. Not to mention he was already a Monte Carlo champion. Clearly Wawrinka RG 2015 is another beast compared to 09 RG Delpo. Djokovic wouldn't have lost to 09 RG Delpo if 2015 Novak was in Federer's shoes. Federer might've beaten Wawrinka in 2015 but that's because he's got a matchup advantage there.


Wawa won 92.8% service games, 30.5% return games, in RG 15 before the final
delpo won 89.7% service games, 35.4% return games in RG 09 before the final

before the final,
Wawa faced tsonga, old fed worth mentioning
delpo faced fed, tsonga, robredo, andreev

delpo's opposition is tougher by some distance and yet he has slight edge in stats. he was a little better if you ask me. But I just settled on saying similar. no way on earth is wawa a level above. Yes, wawa had a slam and a clay masters, but delpo played as freely as he could. it didn't make a difference vs fed.

delpo was a beast off both wings when firing in 2009, lest people forget that. and obviously a better returner than wawa - clearly so. Wawa's edge was in service games held, not as much as return edge for delpo the other way around.

it wasn't just the semi vs fed. delpo was hot for RG 09 tourney. I remember watching the 4R match vs Tsonga live. He made tsonga look helpless in front of his home crowd. Tsonga barely won the 2nd set in a TB and delpo took the other 3 sets very convincingly, with 2 breadsticks thrown in.
obviously Delpo beat Robredo badly as well and beat andreev convincingly.

Djoko of RG 15 SF/F would lose to delpo of RG 09.
He'd need to be in top form like RG 11/13/16 to be able to beat that delpo.

yes, delpo got double bagelled in AO 09. so? he was improving rapidly that year. for example, delpo beat nadal in Miami BH to FH in the 3rd set coming back from a clear deficit.


So I still disagree with you, but you've got your reasons to believe what you do and I respect them. We won't convince each other. Nonetheless it doesn't matter. The question is who gets to lose to 2014 Nadal. It's definitely no badge of honor.

just mentioning some facts and arguments. for example, you missed Soderling having to save SP vs fed in the 3rd set in RG 10 QF.
Also see the RG 09/15 stat comparisions above.
and yes, also pointing out a little bit of the under-rating of RG 99, RG 10 fed and under-rating of RG 09 delpo in comparision to RG 15 wawa.

its not just about who loses to 14 RG Nadal for me.
 
Last edited:
Top