Nadal had the toughest competition out of any player in history

[abmk]

I already posted stats like this. I posted all kinds of stats. They all look the same:

11-16/08-13 >> 04-09

no, you didn't.
And like I said to you before. You need to actually know what was going on in each slam/year
if you look at stats like this, you'll see 2013 AO , stan = 4R.
but you won't have a clue how well he played vs Djokovic and that it was the birth of Stanimal.

2008-2013 > 2004-2009 (not by too much, but to a little extent)......... 2004-09 was no worse than 2011-16

again, just plain stats are useless without the context. the part about homogenization still hasn't sunk in for you for starters. Maybe when you are out of your kid phase, you'll understand.

Also you in are in complete denial about the fail-gen (Raonic-Nishi-Dimi gen) for Djokovic from 14-16. It'll sink in one day.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

no, you didn't.

I did. I can't find the post.

For example:

04-09 federer's four best opponents (nadal, roddick, djokovic, hewitt) won 7 slams, reached 9 finals and 13 semifinals

08-13 nadal's four best opponents (djokovic, federer, murray, ferrer) won 13 slams, reached 16 finals and 24 semifinals

11-16 djokovic's four best opponents (nadal, murray, federer, wawrinka) won 12 slams, reached 14 finals and 20 semifinals

 

[Djorau]

Still have to credit Agassi since his existence single-handedly prevented the Sampras era from becoming the weakest era in tennis history, especially after 1994-1995. Imagining an era of just one 15/16 slam winner with a bunch of one or two-slam mugs like Chang, Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Korda, Moya, Bruguera, Rafter, Kafelnikov being slam/top 5/top 10 "contenders".

Also you in are in complete denial about the fail-gen (Raonic-Nishi-Dimi gen) for Djokovic from 14-16. It'll sink in one day.

They are the equivalent of Henman during the late 1990s or Ancic during 2004-2008.

OldFed, Stan and Murray are better than Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Safin.

 

[Jonas78]

I did. I can't find the post.

For example:

04-09 federer's four best opponents (nadal, roddick, djokovic, hewitt) won 7 slams, reached 9 finals and 13 semifinals

08-13 nadal's four best opponents (djokovic, federer, murray, ferrer) won 13 slams, reached 16 finals and 24 semifinals

11-16 djokovic's four best opponents (nadal, murray, federer, wawrinka) won 12 slams, reached 14 finals and 20 semifinals

Strange logic. Of course they won less 04-09 because Fed won practically everything (outside clay). If you say the field was weak because Fed won much, you also say clay has been weak sinse 2005 because Rafa has won almost everything.

 

[junior74]

I fail to see how Nadal has had such a hard time.

No one has won easier slams on their favourite surface in the history of tennis.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Strange logic. Of course they won less 04-09 because Fed won practically everything (outside clay). If you say the field was weak because Fed won much, you also say clay has been weak sinse 2005 because Rafa has won almost everything.

You have to see how many times they stopped those opponents.

 

[mike danny]

Still have to credit Agassi since his existence single-handedly prevented the Sampras era from becoming the weakest era in tennis history, especially after 1994-1995. Imagining an era of just one 15/16 slam winner with a bunch of one or two-slam mugs like Chang, Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Korda, Moya, Bruguera, Rafter, Kafelnikov being slam/top 5/top 10 "contenders".


They are the equivalent of Henman during the late 1990s or Ancic during 2004-2008.

OldFed, Stan and Murray are better than Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Safin.

Not to a great extent. Both groups are pretty much equalvin that they represent little threat to the dominant player.

Put Stan, Murray cand old Fed in 2004-2007 and they would have ended just like Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Strange logic. Of course they won less 04-09 because Fed won practically everything (outside clay). If you say the field was weak because Fed won much, you also say clay has been weak sinse 2005 because Rafa has won almost everything.

Federer 04-09 beat his four best opponents in 8 slam finals, 6 semifinals and 1 quarterfinal.

Nadal 08-13 beat his four best opponents in 8 slam finals, 8 semifinals and 1 quarterfinal.

Djokovic 11-16 beat his four best opponents in 11 slam finals, 8 semifinals and 2 quarterfinals.


So it's not because of Federer if 04-09 opponents had much worse results. It is Djokovic the one who limited his best opponents the most.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Not to a great extent. Both groups are pretty much equalvin that they represent little threat to the dominant player.

Put Stan, Murray cand old Fed in 2004-2007 and they would have ended just like Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi.

They had much better results, therefore they would be much more dangerous.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Not to a great extent. Both groups are pretty much equalvin that they represent little threat to the dominant player.

Put Stan, Murray cand old Fed in 2004-2007 and they would have ended just like Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi.

2014-16 Wawrinka, Murray and Federer reached 10 slam finals and 10 semifinals.
2004-06 Roddick, Hewitt and Agassi reached 6 slam finals and 4 semifinals.

''Not to a great extent''

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

I fail to see how Nadal has had such a hard time.

No one has won easier slams on their favourite surface in the history of tennis.

Borg comes close.

 

[junior74]

Borg comes close.

Borg Goat

 

[Jonas78]

Federer 04-09 beat his four best opponents in 8 slam finals, 6 semifinals and 1 quarterfinal.

Nadal 08-13 beat his four best opponents in 8 slam finals, 8 semifinals and 1 quarterfinal.

Djokovic 11-16 beat his four best opponents in 11 slam finals, 8 semifinals and 2 quarterfinals.


So it's not because Federer if 04-09 opponents had much worse results. It is Djokovic the one who limited his best opponents the most.

Yes. And as i have said earlier, If i had to choose one It must be Djokovic. Except for late 2014 - FO16 he faced tough opposition on the toughest surface for most of his prime. But he has also won far less, which is partly because of his relatively few years as a slam contender.

But picking 4 opponents is actually cherrypicking. 2004-2009 was a more inconsistent period, which Isn’t necessarily the same as weak.

 

[ADuck]

I fail to see how Nadal has had such a hard time.

No one has won easier slams on their favourite surface in the history of tennis.

I know right, a 94% win rate on clay does make things seem easy.

 

[Jonas78]

I fail to see how Nadal has had such a hard time.

No one has won easier slams on their favourite surface in the history of tennis.

This. Not my intention to "rob" Nadal of anything, every slam is a deserved slam. But when the Bullzillions or Ultronians come up with this BS about 2004-2007 their blindness surprise me.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

I know right, a 94% win rate on clay does make things seem easy.

Especially when RG is his main opponents' weakest slam.

 

[ADuck]

Especially when RG is his main opponents' weakest slam.

He made it into both his main rival's weakest slam

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Especially when RG is his main opponents' weakest slam.

Without Nadal RG would have been Djokovic's third best slam (after AO-UO), maybe his second best (after AO).

Federer in 2005-12 had a 45-1 streak against non-Nadal opponents at RG.

Djokovic in 2006-17 had a 61-4 streak against non-Nadal opponents at RG.


On Murray nothing to say, the RG has been his worst slam, except in 2015-16, when Nadal had other problems.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

He made it into both his main rival's weakest slam

But RAFA wasn't the reason why Novak didn't win it in his best seasons 2011 & 2015.

 

[Jonas78]

He made it into both his main rival's weakest slam

Well thats not true, obviously not for Federer. His style has always been better on fast and low bouncing courts, which is the opposite of clay. That has nothing to do with Rafa. It is also pretty clear that slow/medium HC suits Djokers style the most. But If grass or clay is Djokers worst surface is debatable.

 

[ADuck]

Without Nadal RG would have been Djokovic's third best slam (after AO-UO), maybe his second best (after AO).

Federer in 2005-12 had a 45-1 streak against non-Nadal opponents at RG.

Djokovic in 2006-17 had a 61-4 streak against non-Nadal opponents at RG.


On Murray nothing to say, RG has been his worst slam, except in 2015-16, when Nadal had other problems.

Rafa is simply the GOAT when it comes to making great opponents look weak on his favorite surface. Shame the real GOAT couldn't do the same on his favorite surface

 

[ADuck]

But RAFA wasn't the reason why Novak didn't win it in his best seasons 2011 & 2015.

Took two GOATing opponents to take him down, no shame in that. Novak isn't as good as Rafa is on clay.

 

[mike danny]

He made it into both his main rival's weakest slam

It'ok to say that, but I don't want to hear double standards about Fed's 2004-2007 when Rafa's main opponents on clay are 0-11 against him at RG when he was playing well

 

[ADuck]

Well thats not true, obviously not for Federer. His style has always been better on fast and low bouncing courts, which is the opposite of clay. That has nothing to do with Rafa. It is also pretty clear that slow/medium HC suits Djokers style the most. But If grass or clay is Djokers worst surface is debatable.

Roger was a great player on clay back in his prime, played some epic matches from 2005-2011 and would have put together a better FO career than almost anyone except Borg. Not true that Roger wasn't well suited for clay. https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-guillermo-coria/F324/C524
You can't reach 5 FO finals if you're not well suited to clay. I'd say he has a more natural clay-court game than Djokovic just from watching him.

 

[ADuck]

It'ok to say that, but I don't want to hear double standards about Fed's 2004-2007 when Rafa's main opponents on clay are 0-11 against him at RG when he was playing well

Roger made everyone look weak from 2004-2007, but just not to the same degree Nadal has on clay.

 

[mike danny]

Roger made everyone look weak from 2004-2007, but just not to the same degree Nadal has on clay.

Fair enough.

 

[Pagoo]

Thankfully, clay isn't the only surface tennis is played on.

 

[Jonas78]

Roger was a great player on clay back in his prime, played some epic matches from 2005-2011 and would have put together a better FO career than almost anyone except Borg. Not true that Roger wasn't well suited for clay. https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-guillermo-coria/F324/C524
You can't reach 5 FO finals if you're not well suited to clay. I'd say he has a more natural clay-court game than Djokovic just from watching him.

Well here is where cherrypicking comes into play. You could say Roger reached 5 FO finals because he also was da1n good on his least preferred surface. But that doesnt fit into his haters reality who think he is overrated right? Or you could say the clay field was terribly weak who let overrated Fed reach 5 finals on his least preferred slam. You choose.

2004-2007 Fed and post 2005 clay is really the same; Did Fed make the field look weak or was it a weak field? Did Rafa make clay look weak or was it weak? Pick whatever fits your reality

 

[Phoenix1983]

I fail to see how Nadal has had such a hard time.

No one has won easier slams on their favourite surface in the history of tennis.

Also outside their favourite surface (see Nadal’s record at the USO - three titles, but a laughable W/L record vs top 10 players compared to all previous 3+ champions there)

 

[KINGROGER]

They had Murray too, but didn't let him become an 6+ slam champion.

Djokovic let Murray become a 2 time slam champion. Federer denied Hewitt and Roddick everytime (and Murray too pretty much, 5-1 in slam meetings, none being particularly close)

2014-16 Wawrinka, Murray and Federer reached 10 slam finals and 10 semifinals.
2004-06 Roddick, Hewitt and Agassi reached 6 slam finals and 4 semifinals.

''Not to a great extent''

Both groups of players are the same threat. Peak Federer is the greater player though which is why he didn’t lose slam finals/SF to likes of Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Djokovic let Murray become a 2 time slam champion. Federer denied Hewitt and Roddick everytime (and Murray too pretty much, 5-1 in slam meetings, none being particularly close)



Both groups of players are the same threat. Peak Federer is the greater player though which is why he didn’t lose slam finals/SF to likes of Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori.

8-2 against peak Murray (2011-16) is better than 5-1 against partially pre-peak Murray (2008-15).

They had two times better results (20 vs 10 finals/semis), stats say they were not the same threat.

Federer lost a semifinal to Murray, never met Wawrinka in finals and Nishikori in finals or semifinals.

 

[KINGROGER]

8-2 against peak Murray (2011-16) is better than 5-1 against partially pre-peak Murray (2008-15).

They had two times better results (20 vs 10 finals/semis), stats say they were not the same threat.

Federer lost a semifinal to Murray, never met Wawrinka in finals and Nishikori in finals or semifinals.

Not it’s not. Federer won a higher % of matches so did better. He also won them all convincingly.

It doesn’t prove anything other than they were more consistent. They’re still the same level of threat to peak Fedwrer (0 threat)

 

[KINGROGER]

A group of players having a few more SF/F appearances does not prove them to be a bigger threat.

For example Murray made way more slam semis and finals than both Safin and Delpo... but the latter 2 were a much bigger threat to Federer at a slam.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Roger made everyone look weak from 2004-2007, but just not to the same degree Nadal has on clay.

They already looked weak by themselves.

Just two examples:

2006's no.3 Davydenko lost 29 matches against players ranked on average no.58.3.

No.3 Ljubicic and no.4 Blake in grand slams have 2 wins and 24 losses against players ranked in the top-12.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

A group of players having a few more SF/F appearances does not prove them to be a bigger threat.

For example Murray made way more slam semis and finals than both Safin and Delpo... but the latter 2 were a much bigger threat to Federer at a slam.

Who cares who's a bigger threat to whom. Federer was a weak opponent for Nadal in 2005-09, since he often lost to him?

Murray, Federer, Stan were better players than Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick because they destroyed the other players, and congrats to Djokovic if he beat them.

 

[ADuck]

Well here is where cherrypicking comes into play. You could say Roger reached 5 FO finals because he also was da1n good on his least preferred surface. But that doesnt fit into his haters reality who think he is overrated right? Or you could say the clay field was terribly weak who let overrated Fed reach 5 finals on his least preferred slam. You choose.

2004-2007 Fed and post 2005 clay is really the same; Did Fed make the field look weak or was it a weak field? Did Rafa make clay look weak or was it weak? Pick whatever fits your reality

Sorry but I don't hate Fed, so those questions you posed all have easy answers. Fed reached 5 FO finals because he's a great player, I think he is overrated by his fans in general, but he's still the best ever. You can say clay had weaker competition than hard or grass, but only because there's a higher amount of hard and grass tournaments than clay. Hard and grass are much more similar than clay and hard, if you argue otherwise, that means grass has the weakest competition out of all 3 surfaces. If you agree, this makes Nadal's success even more impressive since 3 out of 4 slams do not favour his style of play, compared with Federer. Pick which way you wanna go there

See? Two can play at this game

 

[KINGROGER]

They already looked weak by themselves.

Just two examples:

2006's no.3 Davydenko lost 29 matches against players ranked on average no.58.3.

No.3 Ljubicic and no.4 Blake in grand slams have 2 wins and 24 losses against players ranked in the top-12.

Davydenko vs Rafa on HCs - 6-1

Peak Blake vs Rafa H2H - 3-0

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Not it’s not. Federer won a higher % of matches so did better.

1-0 is a higher winning percentage tha 99-1

Between 8-2 and 5-1 there's only a 3.3% difference.

2 wins by Fed were over 21-22yo Murray.

 

[KINGROGER]

Who cares who's a bigger threat to whom. Federer was a weak opponent for Nadal in 2005-09, since he often lost to him?

Murray, Federer, Stan were better players than Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick because they destroyed the other players, and congrats to Djokovic if he beat them.

At RG yeah he was an easy opponent for Rafa. Moonball to BH, wait for short ball, hit FH winner. Easy. Shame Fed never got him at USO or AO during his peak would’ve been fun to see Fed destroy Rafa on the faster USO surface.

Nope, doesn’t make them better players. They were just as weak as Federer’s opponents, except peak Fed only lost 1 non clay slam match to Safin. Djokovic Lost 2 to Wawrinka 2 to Murray 1 to Nishikori LMAO

 

[KINGROGER]

1-0 is a higher winning percentage tha 99-1

Between 8-2 and 5-1 there's only a 3.3% difference.

2 wins by Fed were over 21-22yo Murray.

1-0 to 99-1 is not an equal comparison to 8-2, 5-1 LMAO.

And? Murray just beat peak Rafa and was very much in his prime for both those matches. He’d also just beat prime Djokovic at Cincy. Fed had a bad back in 2013 and was way past his prime.

Fact is, peak Djokovic let 6 grand slams slip to a lesser tier of player. Peak/prime Federer only did that twice with Safin and Delpo.

That’s why one is the GOAT and the other has 12 slams.

 

[ADuck]

They already looked weak by themselves.

Just two examples:

2006's no.3 Davydenko lost 29 matches against players ranked on average no.58.3.

No.3 Ljubicic and no.4 Blake in grand slams have 2 wins and 24 losses against players ranked in the top-12.

I'll give you my general answer on this. I think despite Federer's competition being inconsistent compared with Djokodal's, the inconsistent player's did peak at times and give Fed a run for his money in a way that no mug from Djokodal's time could rarely ever do, most players would just mentally fold after a period of time. The overall inconsistency of those individual players could also be attributed to the opinion that the competition was a high-quality back and forth struggle to be the second or third best at that time. Overall though, I find this kind of competition not as strong as the very consistent top players in Djokodal's era. Federer fans get triggered when you use the word "weaker" even though I do believe it was, so I prefer to just say instead, that Djokodal's era was stronger.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Davydenko vs Rafa on HCs - 6-1

Peak Blake vs Rafa H2H - 3-0

Nadal reached his first hc slam final in 2009.

And a couple of matches against a player won't change the fact that they were embarassing.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

This is GOAT thread. Both weak era and this forum's bias are exposed, looking at the results

 

[KINGROGER]

Nadal reached his first hc slam final in 2009.

And a couple of matches against a player won't change the fact that they were embarassing.

No they weren’t.

Blake at 2006 USO was a tough match for Federer. Just as tough as 2015 Fed for Djokovic at the USO or Wimbledon.

2006 Davydenko at the AO was just as tough as Wawrinka was at 2015 AO. (Probably tougher since he never got bagelled)

I couldn’t care less if they lost a bunch of matches at lower tier events... that’s completely irrelevant to how they actually played on the big stage. Your stats there don’t tell anything about their level of play during the grand slams.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I couldn’t care less if they lost a bunch of matches at lower tier events... that’s completely irrelevant to how they actually played on the big stage. Your stats there don’t tell anything about their level of play during the grand slams.

Blake has 1 win and 15 losses against top-13 in grand slams LOL

 

[KINGROGER]

This is GOAT thread. Both weak era and this forum's bias are exposed, looking at the results

Weak eras:

2005 - present clay era. Nadal’s best competition a grass/HC expert and a slow HC expert LOL. Weak clay era.

2010 - very low number of top 10 players Rafa faced winning 3 slams. Joke USO draw. Federer AWOL between clay and Wimbledon. Djokovic AWOL all year until USO.

2014 - 2016 - 1 peak ATG vs a 33-35 year grandpa with no baseline game and his own pigeon /pusher as number 1 competition, no prime ATG on any surface to challenge.

 

[KINGROGER]

Blake has 1 win and 15 losses against top-13 in grand slams LOL

Completely irrelevant stat to how tough he was when he faced Federer at grand slams. Next.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

1-0 to 99-1 is not an equal comparison to 8-2, 5-1 LMAO.

It was an example, meaning the winning percentage depends on the number of matches too.

 

[ADuck]

This is GOAT thread. Both weak era and this forum's bias are exposed, looking at the results

I don't think you need this thread to notice it, it's blatantly obvious. Despite that, Federer is not winning by majority in this poll despite the majority of people on here being Fed fans.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I just realized the stats show Djokovic's four best opponents (federer, nadal, murray, wawrinka) without him could have won every single slam since 2010 (33 slams, maybe 34 tomorrow), except US Open 2014