Nadal had the toughest competition out of any player in history

Who had the toughest competition

  • Federer

    Votes: 67 36.0%

  • Nadal

    Votes: 73 39.2%

  • Djokovic

    Votes: 46 24.7%
  • Total voters
    186
NoleFam said:
In my opinion, the level that Djokovic played in 2015 was notch above the level Federer played in 2009. I just don't see 2015 Djokovic losing to that version of Federer.
Click to expand...
Hey, it is possible. Fed didn't play his best in 2009.

I just disagree with it being without a doubt.
 
NoleFam said:
In my opinion, the level that Djokovic played in 2015 was notch above the level Federer played in 2009. I just don't see 2015 Djokovic losing to that version of Federer.
Click to expand...

when you are under the completely mistaken impression that Roddick's BH wasn't at its best in Wim 09 and was better in 04/05, of course you'd say that.
 
Federer managed only once to win 2 finals in a row against Djokovic. Never reached 3.
 
Lew said:
Federer managed only once to win 2 finals in a row against Djokovic. Never reached 3.
Click to expand...

LOL, the desperation and BS.
caught your mistake, didn't you ? (edit from no 2 finals in a row to once in a row)

and they've played a lot of SFs.
they only started meeting constantly in finals in 2014-15.

again, get a clue.
 
NoleFam said:
He was outplayed from the baseline but thoroughly? I don't know about that. You don't go even with Djokovic in points that are 7 or more shots unless you are pretty good off the ground. 2009 Federer lost the 4-6 shot category to an inferior Roddick off the ground. I just don't think Federer was that good that day in comparison and never thought so. I will agree that Federer did not have the same athleticism in 2014 that he did in 2009 since he was 28 in 2009.
Click to expand...

Is losing a category of shot more important than a +20 advantage in points that had a return ? (3+ shots) (130 to Federer to 110 for Roddick)
(this is my stat)

yes, Federer was throughly outplayed from the baseline (baseline only, not including net play) in Wim 14 final. He did make up for that gap with some excellent net play.
But that's still a lesser weapon for Federer than his firing FH.

And Djokovic choked in the 4th set quite a bit, something which you very eager to overlook (and yet keep keep pointing one missed volley off a shanked FH from Roddick and declare him mentally weak.)

the gap would quite a bit more if not for Djokovic had not choked considerably in the 4th set.

not a direct comparision to the above in Wim 09 final (since its not the same stat), but he was -10 in 4+ shot rallies vs Djokovic as a whole. (from TA)
 
Federer won 3 slams out of 5 in 2017-18 but he played his best tennis only in 2003-07, when no ATG was near his prime, except Nadal on clay who beat his ass.
 
Lew said:
Federer won 3 slams out of 5 in 2017-18 but he played his best tennis only in 2003-07, when no ATG was near his prime, except Nadal on clay who beat his ass.
Click to expand...

Federer's 09 was wayyy better than his 03, clueless.
08 was also better, way better in slams in particular

Also, Nadal's prime on grass was from 2006-11. 2006,07 were right in fed's peak years, 08 in a prime year. Federer beat Nadal twice at Wimbledon.

Also older Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin etc. on their best surfaces were excellent players.

in Djokovic's prime, Nadal was in his prime on clay and HC from 2011-13. (half of 2014 if you want to stretch it) (but he was out for 2nd half 2012) , so its a max of 3 years tops. also 11/13 nadal was lesser than 06-09 Nadal on clay.

Djokovic didn't have a prime ATG for half of his period either.
 
@NoleFam :

from TA stats :
Wim 14 final :

Federer 1-3 shot rallies : 113
Djokovic : 109

Federer got 115 returns in play, 3 DFs for djoko --- out of 174
Djokovic got 120 returns in play, 5 DFs for federer --- out of 192

that means Djokovic had 46 serves unreturned
that means Federer had 67 serves unreturned

so 1-2 shots (taking DF as 1 shot, it should be 0 IMO) : Federer won : 67 unret. serves+3 DFS from djoko = 70
Djoko won : 46 unreturned serves+5 DFs from federer = 51

which means on the 3rd shot :
Djoko = 58
Federer = 43

so basically the federer return+FH (mostly) (throw in BH+SnV to an extent ) was considerably less effective than djokovic return+groundstrokes.
if fed's FH is anywhere near good, even with the djoko returning advantage of keeping it deep more, the 3rd shot should be close to even. it wasn't, because federer's FH lacked the pace.

so 3+ shot rallies in the match : Djoko won : 58 + 77 = 135 points
Federer won : 43+67 = 110 points

That's a gap of 25 points in shots that had atleast a return.
 
Last edited:
@NoleFam

2012 wimbledon semi :

1-3 shot rallies :

Federer : 71
Djokovic : 60

Federer had 42 unret. serves
Djokovic had 34 unret.serves

4 DFs for Djokovic
2 DFs for Federer

1-2 shots : Federer : 46
Djokovic : 36

3rd shot : Federer : 25
Djokovic : 24

about the same here.

4+ shot rallies from TA :
Federer : 43
Djokovic : 42

so 3+ shots :

Federer : 68
Djokovic : 66

about the same

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20120706-M-Wimbledon-SF-Roger_Federer-Novak_Djokovic.html

----------

2015 Wim final :

Federer : 82
Djokovic : 91

Djokovic had 48 unret. serves
Federer had 44 unret. serves

1 DF for djokovic
3 DFs for federer

1-2 shots : Federer = 45
Djokovic : 51

which means 3rd shot :
Federer : 37
Djokovic : 40

not too big a difference here, unlike Wim 14 final.

3+ shots :

Federer : 93
Djokovic : 97

not too big a difference here, unlike Wim 14 final.

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20150712-M-Wimbledon-F-Roger_Federer-Novak_Djokovic.html
 
Last edited:
abmk said:
None of berdych, Cilic, Raonic, Delpo are close to Krajicek considering none of them are anywhere near adept at the net. only tsonga resembles K's game to some extent considering he can volley well.

Also none of these guys have a serve close to K's except for Raonic (whose serve was still less potent than Krajicek's when hot)
Click to expand...
K volleyed well because he grew up in the serve and volley era.

OTOH, we can argue that Cilic, Berdych, Raonic all have better ground game. All of them have better forehand. Cilic and Berdych also have better backhand. Cilic also moves better.
 
abmk said:
None of berdych, Cilic, Raonic, Delpo are close to Krajicek considering none of them are anywhere near adept at the net. only tsonga resembles K's game to some extent considering he can volley well.

Also none of these guys have a serve close to K's except for Raonic (whose serve was still less potent than Krajicek's when hot)
Click to expand...
K volleyed well because he grew up in the serve and volley era.

OTOH, we can argue that Cilic, Berdych, Raonic all have better ground game. orehand. Cilic and Berdych also have better backhand.
 
Djorau said:
K volleyed well because he grew up in the serve and volley era.

OTOH, we can argue that Cilic, Berdych, Raonic all have better ground game. All of them have better forehand. Cilic and Berdych also have better backhand. Cilic also moves better.
Click to expand...

Sirstly, it wasn't the serve&volley era. It was an era with clearly more styles/variety than current.
Similarly Cilic, Berdych etc. have better ground game because they grew up in the baseline era.

not the point. Point is there is not that much of a resemblance in their games.
Also that K's game would considerably tougher than the game of these guys on grass for Djokovic (or most players for that matter) . As far as the 96 Krajicek is concerned, they are very few in history who'd be able to beat him in that form at Wimbledon - Djokovic certainly ain't one of them on the older grass & he'd still be the underdog on the current grass.
 
Tsonga is the best recent S&Ver and lost 14 matches out of 15 since 2011. 0-3 on grass, 1 set won out of 9.
 
This time travel tennis in which Federer always wins and Djokovic always loses is funny.
 
Lew said:
This time travel tennis in which Federer always wins and Djokovic always loses is funny.
Click to expand...

There was no mention of Federer anywhere there . This has to do with reminding your bullsh*tters that tennis existed before 2011.
K's run in Wim 96 was special, but clueless you brings up random sh*t like Berdych, Cilic, Tsonga etc. , none of which is near relevant to K's run/his style for that matter.
 
Here's to you another intersting view of the opponents.

Sets dropped during the tournament by slam finalists met.

Federer met in the finals players who had dropped on average 3.47 sets. Those he beat had lost on average 4.2 sets, those who beat him had lost on average 1.7 sets.

Soon I will update it with Djokovic and Nadal. Stay tuned. ;)
 
NatF said:
Tsonga is in no way a S&V player. A S&V player will come to net on virtually every serve, Tsonga doesn't come close to this.
Click to expand...
He's the best at doing it. And if he didn't do it against Djokovic, maybe that means it wasn't effective.
 
This thread was BS from the start as neither of the Big 3 have had the toughest competition in history :D

The candidate for that is Ivan Lendl.
 
Lew said:
He's the best at doing it. And if he didn't do it against Djokovic, maybe that means it wasn't effective.
Click to expand...

Tsonga is not the best at SnVing in this era (that would be Stepanek, Mahut, Llodra in recent times and they're nowhere near the calibre of K) and he's nowhere near an SnVer.

You actually need to watch an SnV match to understand what SnVing is. :D
 
abmk said:
Tsonga is not the best at SnVing in this era (that would be Stepanek, Mahut, Llodra in recent times and they're nowhere near the calibre of K) and he's nowhere near an SnVer.

You actually need to watch an SnV match to understand what SnVing is. :D
Click to expand...
Where would you say Federer ranks? If you had to do say a top 5 or 10. I realise he’s rarely done it full time part from some matches in 2014 and pre 2004.
 
Lew said:
He's the best at doing it. And if he didn't do it against Djokovic, maybe that means it wasn't effective.
Click to expand...

He doesn't do it against anyone. I wouldn't call anyone the best at S&V unless they've used it consistently and successfully.
 
Lew said:
Federer met in the finals players who had dropped on average 3.47 sets. Those he beat had lost on average 4.2 sets, those who beat him had lost on average 1.7 sets.
Click to expand...

Djokovic met in the finals players who had dropped on average 2.05 sets. Those he beat had lost on average 2.17 sets, those who beat him had lost on average 1.89 sets.


For Nadal you'll have to wait later/tomorrow.
 
NatF said:
He doesn't do it against anyone. I wouldn't call anyone the best at S&V unless they've used it consistently and successfully.
Click to expand...
There's a reason if nobody does it anymore. Krajicek today wouldn't have a chance.
 
abmk said:
Tsonga is not the best at SnVing in this era (that would be Stepanek, Mahut, Llodra in recent times and they're nowhere near the calibre of K) and he's nowhere near an SnVer.

You actually need to watch an SnV match to understand what SnVing is. :D
Click to expand...

What I mean is he's the best player who can do S&V (except Federer maybe). Stepanek, Mahut, Llodra are much inferior players overall.
 
2015 Wimby and USO Federer was obviously peak Federer.
Comparing sportstars from the 70s, 80s, 90s to modern sportstars, which is what everyone keeps doing. Modern sportstars are living far far longer than they used to.

Tom Brady, arguably the greatest Quarterback ever is still dominating the NFL in the world today at nearly 41. And he might still be the best QB in the world till he's 45. No one's ever done that before, but we're living in a different era.

Messi and Ronaldo will still be in the top 10 world footballers at close to the age of 40 IMO as well if they wanted it enough. Ronaldo is nearly 34 and just hit 44 goals for the season.

The idea of being washed up at 30 like it was in the olden days is laughable now. They're all living at least 10 years longer.
 
NatF said:
He doesn't do it against anyone. I wouldn't call anyone the best at S&V unless they've used it consistently and successfully.
Click to expand...
Too bad these latter won't be a consequence of the former. It's just not a winning strategy anymore.

Although off clay, players should try it more often against Nadal, who returns from Haiti
 
mike danny said:
He had to contend with around lots of ATG :eek:

Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Edberg and then the rise of Sampras and Agassi.

The Big 3 have had each other and no one else.
Click to expand...
He was a baby when Connors/Borg/McEnroe were at their peak and grandpa when Sampras/Agassi arrived.

85 USO he got an injured Connors in the SF while Mac battled out against Wilander and came out flat in the final (similar to RAFA vs Novak at USO) and 1990 AO was an asterisk :/
 
tarutani said:
2015 Wimby and USO Federer was obviously peak Federer.
Comparing sportstars from the 70s, 80s, 90s to modern sportstars, which is what everyone keeps doing. Modern sportstars are living far far longer than they used to.

Tom Brady, arguably the greatest Quarterback ever is still dominating the NFL in the world today at nearly 41. And he might still be the best QB in the world till he's 45. No one's ever done that before, but we're living in a different era.

Messi and Ronaldo will still be in the top 10 world footballers at close to the age of 40 IMO as well if they wanted it enough. Ronaldo is nearly 34 and just hit 44 goals for the season.

The idea of being washed up at 30 like it was in the olden days is laughable now. They're all living at least 10 years longer.
Click to expand...

And tennis is one of the sports that most rely on technique.

The rackets don't change anymore, so the older player have a big experience advantage.
 
Im(moral) Winner said:
He was a baby when Connors/Borg/McEnroe were at their peak and grandpa when Sampras/Agassi arrived.

85 USO he got an injured Connors in the SF while Mac battled out against Wilander and came out flat in the final (similar to RAFA vs Novak at USO) and 1990 AO was an asterisk :/
Click to expand...
Wasn't quite a baby. He was 21 in 1981 when he lost to Borg. And he was 24 when Mac was at his peak in 1984.

Rafa and Novak are grandpas, yet they have no ATG's right now.
 
mike danny said:
He had to contend with around lots of ATG :eek:

Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Edberg and then the rise of Sampras and Agassi.

The Big 3 have had each other and no one else.
Click to expand...
They had Murray too, but didn't let him become an 6+ slam champion.
 
abmk said:
he did have it easy/luck in some of his wins...but that was more than counter-balanced by the toughness in many of his losses.

I'd still go with Lendl overall.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Lendl had ATG in every phase of his career. The Big 3 not so much.
 
So Djokovic met in slam finals players who had dropped 2.05 sets, Nadal 2.58, Federer 3.47.

Federer usually beats those who dropped more sets (4.2).
 
I was looking at the score in 2011-16 grand slams by Djokovic's opponents:

Murray 119-20 (85.6%)
Nadal 83-14 (85.6%)
Federer 99-21 (82.5%)
Wawrinka 79-21 (79%)
Ferrer 81-23 (77.9%)
Tsonga 72-22 (76.6%)
Berdych 74-23 (76.3%)
Cilic 53-19 (73.6%)
Del Potro 38-14 (73.1%)
Gasquet 62-23 (72.9%)
Raonic 58-22 (72.5%)
Nishikori 54-22 (71.1%)

So many good players...
 
in 2011-16 Murray had 126 wins and 5 losses (none in finals/semis) against non big-3 in grand slams and olympics :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lew said:
in 2011-16 Murray had 126 wins and 5 losses (none in finals/semis) against non big-3 in grand slams and olympics :confused:
Click to expand...
Too bad he's a mug and he did it against weak-era competition.

(Anybody who knows tennis knows Murray is the Big 3's lapdog).
 
Lew said:
in 2011-16 Murray had 126 wins and 5 losses (none in finals/semis) against non big-3 in grand slams and olympics :confused:
Click to expand...

That includes skipping RG 13, where he'd have likely had a loss to a non big 3
AO 2016 where he escaped due to Raonic's injury (was down 2 sets to one before Raonic got injured in the 4th set)
had no business making RG SG in 2014 , just escaped vs Kohlscreiber and then QF - if he had met either Ferrer/Gulbis instead at that RG, he'd have lost to them, he got ripped apart by Nadal in the SF)

RG 15 - if he'd faced Stan, he'd have lost to him as well, not just Djoker

AO 14, USO 14 - he was vulnerable to an in-form non-big 3 as well, he just happened to meet them in the QF.

etc.

and why the hell is Olympics included here ? YEC is more important for starters.

Oh, I get it. Just another of your BS manipulations to make him look better.

Here, get a frickin' clue : Murray benefitted quite a bit from homogenization and lesser depth/variety of styles compared to previous years/generations as far as consistency goes.

He's at Courier level nothing more.

Only biased Djokovic fans/crazy fellows can think he's at Becker/Edberg/Wilander level.
 
most GS wins:

2004-09

1) Federer 149
2) Nadal 77
3) Roddick 74
4) Hewitt 70
5) Djokovic 66
6) Davydenko 61
7) Robredo 56
8) Nalbandian 54
9) Gonzalez 49
10) Haas 48


2008-13

1) Djokovic 125
2) Federer 122
3) Murray 103
4) Nadal 101
5) Ferrer 79
6) Tsonga 68
7) Berdych/Del Potro 58
9) Verdasco 55
10) Roddick 48


2011-16

1) Djokovic 143
2) Murray 119
3) Federer 99
4) Nadal 83
5) Ferrer 81
6) Wawrinka 79
7) Berdych 74
8) Gasquet 62
9) Raonic 58
10) Nishikori 54
 
Lew said:
IMO Olympics is more important.
Click to expand...


Talk about what is regarded as more important in the tennis world. That is the YEC.

tennis world isn't evaluated based on your opinion.
Anyways your opinion is full of cr*p..
 
Lew said:
most GS wins:

2004-09

1) Federer 149
2) Nadal 77
3) Roddick 74
4) Hewitt 70
5) Djokovic 66
6) Davydenko 61
7) Robredo 56
8) Nalbandian 54
9) Gonzalez 49
10) Haas 48


2008-13

1) Djokovic 125
2) Federer 122
3) Murray 103
4) Nadal 101
5) Ferrer 79
6) Tsonga 68
7) Berdych/Del Potro 58
9) Verdasco 55
10) Roddick 48


2011-16

1) Djokovic 143
2) Murray 119
3) Federer 99
4) Nadal 83
5) Ferrer 81
6) Wawrinka 79
7) Berdych 74
8) Gasquet 62
9) Raonic 58
10) Nishikori 54
Click to expand...

and yet another useless piece of stat.

Stan has 3 majors in that 11-16, period. Ferrer 0.
Nadal has 5 majors in that 11-16 period to" only" 3 for Murray and only 1 for Federer.

Nadal has 6 majors in the 2004-2009 period.
 
REKX said:
Firstly I have to state I am a Federer and Nadal fan, and this is a very unbiased thread, but just what I have observed over the years. I would still say Federer is the greatest player followed by Nadal second, then either Djokovic or Sampras number 3.

Federer had a trouble free start to his grand slam wins, there weren't many notable opponents in the early years. It was a retiring Agassi, and Roddick and few others which weren't of the highest level. Nadal troubled Federer from the very first game. When Nadal and Djokovic started to emerge as multiple grand slam winners, Federer struggled. Federer also enjoyed a very weak era last year.

Djokovic hugely benefited from the end of Federer's career where his form was low, and the same with Nadal in the last few years. Nadal was obviously going to drop off quicker due to his style of play and the impact the body takes. So Djokovic enjoyed a free ride over the last few years, before 2017, and at one point held all four grand slams I believe.

Nadal had it very tough. He was playing on the men's tour when he was a child. He had to compete against who most people consider the greatest player of all time Roger Federer. Nadal was number 2 for so many years, but him and his uncle worked out a way to beat Federer at his own home, and he did so in Wimbledon 2008. Federer was untouchable on grass from 2003 to 2009, and was still in his greatest form in 2008 and Nadal had to battle on his weakest surface to beat him. He then had to compete with Prime Djokovic, against who I would probably consider the third greatest player of all time. So to think he had to compete with the greatest and third greatest players in history in their primes.
Click to expand...
I've always said Rafa had it harder than Roger. Roger cleaned up a lot of slams while rafa and djoker were pups. he didn't have anyone on his level until rafa and djoker hit their primes. then as rafa was starting to dominate and fed fell off ultron djoker showed up. Then as djoker fell off roger got his mojo back just as rafa did.

Novak had it easier than rafa because there were a few years where nadal looked burnt out and like he should retire and so did fed and he was in his prime.
 
abmk said:
and yet another useless piece of stat.

Stan has 3 majors in that 11-16, period. Ferrer 0.
Nadal has 5 majors in that 11-16 period to" only" 3 for Murray and only 1 for Federer.

Nadal has 6 majors in the 2004-2009 period.
Click to expand...

I will post the number of losses too if you want.

I'm posting all the stats in the world, they all say the same thing. They can't be all ''useless''.
 
Lew said:
I will post the number of losses too if you want.

I'm posting all the stats in the world, they all say the same thing. They can't be all ''useless''.
Click to expand...

no, you are miles away from being anywhere near posting relevant stats. (let alone all of them)

My point was that just the # of slam wins is useless. (even losses won't help that much)

I gave you the real-world examples :

Stan has 3 majors in that 11-16, period. Ferrer 0. (79 wins for Stan to 81 for Ferrer)
Nadal has 5 majors in that 11-16 period to" only" 3 for Murray and only 1 for Federer. (83 wins for Nadal, 99 wins for Federer, 119 for Murray)

Edit : I'll add another one :

This one is the most hilarious :

2008-2013 :

3) Murray 103
4) Nadal 101

Murray has 2 slam wins in that period. Nadal has 10 slams in that period.

:D

Another hypothetical example :

Player A : 2 wins + 2 QFs = 22 wins
Player B : 2 finals+2 SFs = 22 wins

Both have same # of wins in total, but player A has done considerably better.

Also its useless if a player has done pretty well for 2 years and then is injured/is retired in the next 2 years
another player who has played for all 4 years, doing just ok will have more slam wins than him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tennis_pro
Nadal had the weakest competition out of any player in history
2 3 4
Replies
172
Views
9K
Deleted member 307496
D
J
The reason why Federer had the toughest competition!
Replies
9
Views
856
jois
jois
REKX
Reasons Why Nadal Dominated Federer During Their Prime?
2 3 4
Replies
172
Views
16K
ewiewp
E
Druss
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
Federer had it the toughest out of the Big 3
9 10 11
Replies
504
Views
32K
metsman
metsman
Hitman
So if Nadal never had an era of his own, does that mean he actually had the toughest competition of the big three?
2 3
Replies
143
Views
10K
Genious at Work
Genious at Work
Back
Top