Nadal, Federer, and Sampras. Number of majors their GS opponents had or achieved.

[Kobble]

Of the the titles they won, their opponents accumulated majors.

Sampras - 49 majors
Federer - 56 majors
Nadal - 128 majors

Majors won against opponents who never won a grand slam.

Sampras - 3
Federer - 4
Nadal - 4

Majors won against and opponent who had 1 or less GS's

Sampras - 6
Federer - 8
Nadal - 4

Majors won against an opponent with 2 or less majors.

Sampras - 8
Federer - 13
Nadal - 4

 

[Bobby Jr]

It's kind of a pointless measure. The number of majors an opponent had won AT THE TIME they won a given major* might be more indicative but largely not.

For example: Courier won the 1991 French Open vs Agassi who is an 8 times major champion. However, at the time Agassi has won no majors so his number should be 0, not 8. The numbers only look the way you frame them when you look back a decade later but they don't reflect the situation at the time.

 

[Kobble]

It's kind of a pointless measure. The number of majors an opponent had won AT THE TIME they won a given major* might be more indicative but largely not.

For example: Courier won the 1991 French Open vs Agassi who is an 8 times major champion. However, at the time Agassi has won no majors so his number should be 0, not 8. The numbers only look the way you frame them when you look back a decade later but they don't reflect the situation at the time.

What it does do is give you an idea about the talent level and the drive the opponent has to win. In reality it is less flawed than saying a person with 10 majors is better than a person with 6 majors.

 

[The_Order]

Due largely to Nadal owning Federer at majors.

 

[Russeljones]

What it does do is give you an idea about the talent level and the drive the opponent has to win.

Elaborate? Can't see any rationale to support your statement.

 

[tennisaddict]

Due largely to Nadal owning Federer at majors.

Due largely to Nadal losing to Giles Muller , Gonzalez and Ferrer, while Fed won or lost the finals to Nadal.

 

[tennisaddict]

Elaborate? Can't see any rationale to support your statement.

Potential talent is what the OP meant.

 

[Thetouch]

Of the the titles they won, their opponents accumulated majors.

Sampras - 49 majors
Federer - 56 majors
Nadal - 128 majors

Why would you accumulate all their majors? Based on this Nadal gets like 85 majors just by beating Federer, which isn´t that much of a big deal since he beat him like 4 times at the French where Fed just can´t handle him. Which makes it even a bit more confusing since Roger is not a clay specialist at all. ^^

Let´s look at their opponents majors by counting once only (I hope I didn´t miss anything):

Sampras - 31 majors (7 different players who won majors)

Federer - 34 majors (7 different players who won majors)

Nadal - 23 majors (Nadal won his majors against 2 slam winners only: Novak and Fed)

I am kind of surprised that Sampras and Fed are almost even but Sampras had to deal with different styles and most of his opponents won more than 2 slams.

Opponents who never won majors ( by counting just once):

Sampras - 2 players (3 finals)

Federer - 4 players (4 finals)

Nadal - 4 players (4 finals)

 

[DRII]

very insightful thread!

another way (and very unique/intriguing) of pointing out the obvious that 04-07 was relatively weak compared to the time spans preceding and immediately coming after...

kudos to the OP!

 

[Povl Carstensen]

very insightful thread!

another way (and very unique/intriguing) of pointing out the obvious that 04-07 was relatively weak compared to the time spans preceding and immediately coming after...

kudos to the OP!

But ofcourse it would have been stronger, had Federer not been around.

 

[NatF]

I find this flawed, Nadal for example gets as much credit for beating Hewitt at the FO as Federer does for beating him at the USO and Wimbledon.

 

[aldeayeah]

this is a pretty broken measure that overrates vulturing slams from declining greats

 

[NatF]

this is a pretty broken measure that overrates vulturing slams from declining greats

And potentially beating players on their worst surfaces.

 

[DRII]

But ofcourse it would have been stronger, had Federer not been around.

How exactly

w/o Federer in that time span: Agassi would probably have one or two more slams, Nadal maybe one or two more Wimbledons, a few slams spread among relative journeyman (Gonzalez/Bagdahtis/Haas/Nalbadian types), and then some split of the rest between Hewitt and Roddick...

the timespan would just seem far more transitional; post prime Sampras/Agassi and pre prime Nadal/Nole/Murray. it would surely have elevated Roddick's and/or Hewitt's career and records, but thats it. the advent of prime Nadal and Nole (and poly strings taking off) would go on to show how transitional/lacking in relative terms Roddick and Hewitt (especially after he lost foot-speed) were.

that is all...

 

[Kobble]

Why would you accumulate all their majors? Based on this Nadal gets like 85 majors just by beating Federer, which isn´t that much of a big deal since he beat him like 4 times at the French where Fed just can´t handle him. Which makes it even a bit more confusing since Roger is not a clay specialist at all. ^^

Let´s look at their opponents majors by counting once only (I hope I didn´t miss anything):

Sampras - 31 majors (7 different players who won majors)

Federer - 34 majors (7 different players who won majors)

Nadal - 23 majors (Nadal won his majors against 2 slam winners only: Novak and Fed)

I am kind of surprised that Sampras and Fed are almost even but Sampras had to deal with different styles and most of his opponents won more than 2 slams.

Opponents who never won majors ( by counting just once):

Sampras - 2 players (3 finals)

Federer - 4 players (4 finals)

Nadal - 4 players (4 finals)

That would be even more flawed.

You could have have a player that beat Sampras in Majors 8 times, and another player who beat Federer once, and the player who beat Federer once on a lucky streak would come out on top. The goal of this was to express an opponents ability to beat a person capable of winning a major. Kind of like beating the man in the finals who beat the other guys who still has the ability to seal the deal.

 

[Kobble]

this is a pretty broken measure that overrates vulturing slams from declining greats

Definitely, and winning majors of off futures greats who haven't hit their potential. There is no objective easy way to measure someones prime, and what holds them back (injuries).
Sampras Definitely vultured wins off of declining greats, and Nadal got many of his from dominating a guy on his best surface. Sampras also got many from Agassi who was a better slow court player, but still able to get to the USO final. Thats how the game is played, for everyone.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

How exactly

w/o Federer in that time span: Agassi would probably have one or two more slams, Nadal maybe one or two more Wimbledons, a few slams spread among relative journeyman (Gonzalez/Bagdahtis/Haas/Nalbadian types), and then some split of the rest between Hewitt and Roddick...

the timespan would just seem far more transitional; post prime Sampras/Agassi and pre prime Nadal/Nole/Murray. it would surely have elevated Roddick's and/or Hewitt's career and records, but thats it. the advent of prime Nadal and Nole (and poly strings taking off) would go on to show how transitional/lacking in relative terms Roddick and Hewitt (especially after he lost foot-speed) were.

that is all...

Yes it would have been a stronger field with Nadal on top.

 

[DRII]

Yes it would have been a stronger field with Nadal on top.

its a stronger field now, and Nadal is on top!

 

[NatF]

its a stronger field now, and Nadal is on top!

Nope. Only the top tier is strong now (and even then that was only the case in 2011-2012), the second and third tier players were better in Federer's era.

 

[mike danny]

Nope. Only the top tier is strong now (and even then that was only the case in 2011-2012), the second and third tier players were better in Federer's era.

Exactly. The entire field did not mirraculously get better after 2007. There are simply a few guys at the top aho are very good. But no radical change whatsoever in the field overall

 

[NatF]

Exactly. The entire field did not mirraculously get better after 2007. There are simply a few guys at the top aho are very good. But no radical change whatsoever in the field overall

The top 10 in 2005 had Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Agassi, Davydenko, Lujubacic, Coria in there. Now I'm not convinced at all that current Wawrinka, Murray and Federer are better than Roddick or Hewitt but even giving that the benefit of a doubt Nalbandian, Agassi etc...are better players the next guys down and you have Ljubacic, Davydenko and Coria all winners of Masters series at least. Plus Ferrer, Gasquet, Johansson, Berdych, Safin, Blake, Ferrero, Gonzalez and others around the top 20.

Really don't see this big difference.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

its a stronger field now, and Nadal is on top!

That is another discussion. But I can see why you chose to bail out of the other one.

 

[DRII]

Exactly. The entire field did not mirraculously get better after 2007. There are simply a few guys at the top aho are very good. But no radical change whatsoever in the field overall

incredibly weak rationalization and retort

who really cares about the lower level (relatively speaking) players, when you have extreme outliers ie all-time greats like Sampras/Agassi/Federer/Nadal/Nole and strong potentials like Murray/Safin

point is; Federer did not have another outlier to compete against from 04-07 (except Nadal on clay and perhaps Safin when he was actually fit and mentally sound, which wasn't that often at that point).

please accept reality...

 

[NatF]

incredibly weak rationalization and retort

who really cares about the lower level (relatively speaking) players, when you have extreme outliers ie all-time greats like Sampras/Agassi/Federer/Nadal/Nole and strong potentials like Murray/Safin

point is; Federer did not have another outlier to compete against from 04-07 (except Nadal on clay and perhaps Safin when he was actually fit and mentally sound, which wasn't that often at that point).

please accept reality...

So you think Nole's presence alone makes this era stronger? Especially considering Murray and Federer's issues the past year and a half. Ok, if you think Gasquet and Youzhny are tough draws together with a Djokovic who gives 2 sets away with errors be my guest :lol:

The only years where there was really a big 4 were 2011 and 2012, perhaps 2008 towards the end of the year. Nadal hardly dominated the big 4 era he mostly waited it out.

 

[mike danny]

incredibly weak rationalization and retort

who really cares about the lower level (relatively speaking) players, when you have extreme outliers ie all-time greats like Sampras/Agassi/Federer/Nadal/Nole and strong potentials like Murray/Safin

point is; Federer did not have another outlier to compete against from 04-07 (except Nadal on clay and perhaps Safin when he was actually fit and mentally sound, which wasn't that often at that point).

please accept reality...

I just said this era has tougher guys at the top. What did I say wrong?

The rest of the filed is pretty much the same as in Fed's time. So no, the field did not get better this era, just better guys at the top

I said nothing wrong

 

[NatF]

DRII lives in a bizarre world where a player can make 14 UE's and only 6 winners in an opening set, practically give up in the 4th and still be considered a very tough opponent because of a purple patch for a set and a half.

While Federer goes through multiple players playing at a similar level and sometimes better but because their names aren't Novak Djokovic they're weak competition.

 

[mike danny]

DRII lives in a bizarre world where a player can make 14 UE's and only 6 winners in an opening set, practically give up in the 4th and still be considered a very tough opponent because of a purple patch for a set and a half.

While Federer goes through multiple players playing at a similar level and sometimes better but because their names aren't Novak Djokovic they're weak competition.

Roddick played as well in 2006 USO as Djokovic in 2013. 2 good sets and 2 bad ones.

But because his name wasn't Djokovic, it doesn't count

 

[NatF]

Roddick played as well in 2006 USO as Djokovic in 2013. 2 good sets and 2 bad ones.

But because his name wasn't Djokovic, it doesn't count

Exactly, Agassi and Hewitt in 05 were both easily about the equal of Djokovic 2013 at the USO IMO.

 

[mike danny]

very insightful thread!

another way (and very unique/intriguing) of pointing out the obvious that 04-07 was relatively weak compared to the time spans preceding and immediately coming after...

kudos to the OP!

1996-1998 was weaker IMO

 

[DRII]

DRII lives in a bizarre world where a player can make 14 UE's and only 6 winners in an opening set, practically give up in the 4th and still be considered a very tough opponent because of a purple patch for a set and a half.

While Federer goes through multiple players playing at a similar level and sometimes better but because their names aren't Novak Djokovic they're weak competition.

I'm talking about players at their aggregate, median playing level throughout various time spans.

you and others are really grasping at straws to breakdown any players level during specific times of one match of one year and try extrapolate that into anything meaningful

Murray and especially Nole handily trump Roddick and Hewitt overall (and especially during 04-07 when Hewitt had lost foot-speed, which was his greatest asset); any day!

 

[NatF]

I'm talking about players at their aggregate, median playing level throughout various time spans.

you and others are really grasping at straws to breakdown any players level during specific times of one match of one year and try extrapolate that into anything meaningful

Murray and especially Nole handily trump Roddick and Hewitt overall (and especially during 04-07 when Hewitt had lost foot-speed, which was his greatest asset); any day!

Hewitt = Murray in terms of playing level and achievements.

Median level matters perhaps in terms of rankings, at the slams when looking at competition it doesn't matter, if Djokovic is a 9 for most of the year but a 7 in the final I don't see how he's better competition hen guys like Hewitt and Roddick hit that level and beyond.

It is meaningful to look at the forms of certain players. For all your crap about strong era how many early exits did Murray and Federer have last year? How many finals did Djokovic make between the USO and Monte Carlo? One is your answer.

That's your strong era lol.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Murray and especially Nole handily trump Roddick and Hewitt overall (and especially during 04-07 when Hewitt had lost foot-speed, which was his greatest asset); any day!

And still Federer went nr 1 at 31.

 

[Thetouch]

That would be even more flawed.

You could have have a player that beat Sampras in Majors 8 times, and another player who beat Federer once, and the player who beat Federer once on a lucky streak would come out on top. The goal of this was to express an opponents ability to beat a person capable of winning a major. Kind of like beating the man in the finals who beat the other guys who still has the ability to seal the deal.

This doesn´t sound any better or useful to me. ;-)

As matter of fact your way of counting majors makes the current tour even weaker since Nadal beat Fed and Novak mostly while Fed for sure is past his prime which means the other players aren´t able to make it through the big 3. So why would you give Nadal for any win over him again 17 points? This is kind of pointless.

That´s why I added the players who never won anything and got beaten by Sampras, Nadal and Fed beat in the finals.

 

[DRII]

Hewitt = Murray in terms of playing level and achievements.

Median level matters perhaps in terms of rankings, at the slams when looking at competition it doesn't matter, if Djokovic is a 9 for most of the year but a 7 in the final I don't see how he's better competition hen guys like Hewitt and Roddick hit that level and beyond.

It is meaningful to look at the forms of certain players. For all your crap about strong era how many early exits did Murray and Federer have last year? How many finals did Djokovic make between the USO and Monte Carlo? One is your answer.

That's your strong era lol.

no one's talking about one year! how about you actually comprehend whats being posted.

and Hewitt most certainly does not equal Murray in ability! Especially after he lost foot speed post 2002!

 

[NatF]

no one's talking about one year! how about you actually comprehend whats being posted.

and Hewitt most certainly does not equal Murray in ability! Especially after he lost foot speed post 2002!

Hewitt had not lost foot speed in 04...and yeah he does IMO.

How about you actually come up with something more than **** generalizations. Djokovic was superb in 2011 but since then he's been terrible in GS finals outside of AO. The fact he's ultra consistent is a plus but the main metric for evaluating greatness is the major count. Which is why my comparison of play in major finals counts for more than whatever BS you're trying to peddle.

Explain why an 'outlier' who fails to peak at the biggest events is better than a slew of other just very good players in terms of competition.

 

[mike danny]

Hewitt had not lost foot speed in 04...and yeah he does IMO.

How about you actually come up with something more than **** generalizations. Djokovic was superb in 2011 but since then he's been terrible in GS finals outside of AO. The fact he's ultra consistent is a plus but the main metric for evaluating greatness is the major count. Which is why my comparison of play in major finals counts for more than whatever BS you're trying to peddle.

Explain why an 'outlier' who fails to peak at the biggest events is better than a slew of other just very good players in terms of competition.

Plus in 2005 Hewitt would have reached 3 GS finals, had he not had Fed in the semis in W an USO. He could have even wonone of those finals.

So in 2005 Hewitt could have been as good as Djokovic in 2013. 3 GS finals and maybe 1 win. He was as good competitionas anybody

 

[NatF]

Plus in 2005 Hewitt would have reached 3 GS finals, had he not had Fed in the semis in W an USO. He could have even wonone of those finals.

So in 2005 Hewitt could have been as good as Djokovic in 2013. 3 GS finals and maybe 1 win. He was as good competitionas anybody

Yeah Hewitt played a light schedule but his results especially at the beginning of the year and end of the last were great. USO final, final of the YEC, final of the AO (beating Nadal, Nalbandian and Roddick to get there), the final of IW beating Roddick again. The guy was in the best form of his life. At the USO and Wimbledon he was great too, if he got through Federer I would have favored him against Roddick and Agassi.

Up to the crazy unbeaten run at the end of the year outside of Australia 2013 Djokovic was barely better than his 2007 self on the hard courts. He won Miami over Nadal and beat Federer in Montreal in 2007.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah Hewitt played a light schedule but his results especially at the beginning of the year and end of the last were great. USO final, final of the YEC, final of the AO (beating Nadal, Nalbandian and Roddick to get there), the final of IW beating Roddick again. The guy was in the best form of his life. At the USO and Wimbledon he was great too, if he got through Federer I would have favored him against Roddick and Agassi.

Up to the crazy unbeaten run at the end of the year outside of Australia 2013 Djokovic was barely better than his 2007 self on the hard courts. He won Miami over Nadal and beat Federer in Montreal in 2007.

I would favor Hewitt over Roddick and Agassi in 2005 as well. Roddick was playing awfull an Agassi was coming after 3 consecutive 5 setters.

 

[NatF]

I would favor Hewitt over Roddick and Agassi in 2005 as well. Roddick was playing awfull an Agassi was comin after 3 consecutive 5 setters.

Roddick wasn't awful but he was low on confidence.

 

[mike danny]

Roddick wasn't awful but he was low on confidence.

Compared to 2004, he played badly in 2005