Nadal has beaten #1 at every slam title, except for RG 2010 (but he beat Soderling!)

[Steve0904]

To compare, Federer has beat the #1 or #2 (when he was number 1), in 4 of his 17 victories. All at Wimbledon, Roddick, Hewitt, and Nadal twice.

Nadal has done this in 9 of his 13 wins. And at least once at each slam.

I think you had it right the first time. It's 5 because he beat Novak at Wimbledon in 2012.

Anyways, it's an impressive stat from Nadal, to be sure, but it has to be said, all this shows is basically a top heavy era where upsets are uncommon. Look at AO 2014. Wawrinka upsets Djokovic so technically Nadal does not get the opportunity to beat the #2 player when he's #1. So his conversion rate for a stat like this would've gone down even if he had won the AO. That's how flawed this statistic is.

Plus, Nadal did not give Federer the opportunity to improve this stat because he wasn't making AO and USO finals when he was #2. The rankings said Nadal was #2 on clay, but he wasn't really. The 2005 and 2006 RG titles are impressive to me, but every RG after that? Not really, in terms of this stat IMO. And again, at least Federer gave Nadal that opportunity. He wouldn't get it if all Federer ever done was lose in SF's and QF's at RG for example. 2008 Wimbledon was also impressive. Maybe 2012 RG, but that's debatable.

So that's 3 slams out of 9 that I would deem "impressive." Nadal was the favourite in the other 6 he won while not ranked #1 anyway. The other 3, Nadal won when he was ranked #1 (given that we're excluding 2010 RG).

In fairness, Federer was also a big favourite I would say against Hewitt(#2) at USO 2004 and Roddick at Wimbledon 2005. So that makes Federer's total 3 out of 15 slams where he either beat the #2 when he was number #1, or #1 and wasn't a huge favourite at the time

Safin took out #1 Roddick at AO 2004. Safin is pretty good I would say. Every other slam, Federer won while being ranked #1 except for the 2008 USO, 2009 RG and 2009 Wimbledon, and as others have stated, it's kind of hard to beat the #1 when you are the #1.

In any case, it is hard to deny that surface homogenization has not played a role. Yes the surfaces are still different, but what surface homogenization has done is make the guys that would be threats on faster surfaces like Tsonga, Berdych, and even JMDP almost null. Of course, Federer has benefited from this also in that sense, but not as much. That was why I mentioned a guy like Safin at AO 2004. Because back then the surfaces were not nearly as homogenized as today. Of course, the amount of logic you take from this kind of depends upon whether or not you subscribe to the "weak era" theory as most Nadal fans do, but that is subjective. The fact that all the surfaces have slowed down is not.

For example, I do not think it's a coincidence that 2 guys have completed the career slam in recent years (with perhaps a 3rd to follow) when it was only done 4 times in history before that. Federer and Nadal are greater than your average players obviously, but there have been plenty of great players who didn't complete the CGS. Borg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe to name a few, and by today's standards, none besides Connors would have completed it anyway because they didn't win the AO mostly because they didn't care about it in the first place.

 

[drm025]

So when Fed wins , he is responsible when the No.2 does not reach the final and Nadal should get more credit when he wins because Fed is consistent in reaching the finals ?

No one is responsible, just pointing out that Nadal has had to go through the best player in the world other than himself more than Fed.

The top players are more consistent today than they were from 2004-2007.

 

[drm025]

I think you had it right the first time. It's 5 because he beat Novak at Wimbledon in 2012.

Anyways, it's an impressive stat from Nadal, to be sure, but it has to be said, all this shows is basically a top heavy era where upsets are uncommon. Look at AO 2014. Wawrinka upsets Djokovic so technically Nadal does not get the opportunity to beat the #2 player when he's #1. So his conversion rate for a stat like this would've gone down even if he had won the AO. That's how flawed this statistic is.

Plus, Nadal did not give Federer the opportunity to improve or lessen this stat because he wasn't making AO and USO finals when he was #2. The rankings said Nadal was #2 on clay, but he wasn't really. The 2005 and 2006 RG titles are impressive to me, but every RG after that? Not really, in terms of this stat IMO. And again, at least Federer gave Nadal that opportunity. He wouldn't get it if all Federer ever done was lose in SF's and QF's at RG for example. 2008 Wimbledon was also impressive. Maybe 2012 RG, but that's debatable.

So that's 3 slams out of 9 that I would deem "impressive." Nadal was the favourite in the other 6 he won while not ranked #1 anyway. The other 3, Nadal won when he was ranked #1 (given that we're excluding 2010 RG).

In fairness, Federer was also a big favourite I would say against Hewitt(#2) at USO 2004 and Roddick at Wimbledon 2005. So that makes Federer's total 3 out of 15 slams where he either beat the #2 when he was number #1, or #1 and wasn't a huge favourite at the time

Safin took out #1 Roddick at AO 2004. Safin is pretty good I would say. Every other slam, Federer won while being ranked #1 except for the 2008 USO, 2009 RG and 2009 Wimbledon, and as others have stated, it's kind of hard to beat the #1 when you are the #1.

In any case, it is hard to deny that surface homogenization has not played a role. Yes the surfaces are still different, but what surface homogenization has done is make the guys that would be threats on faster surfaces like Tsonga, Berdych, and even JMDP almost null. Of course, Federer has benefited from this also in that sense, but not as much. That was why I mentioned a guy like Safin at AO 2004. Because back then the surfaces were not nearly as homogenized as today. Of course, the amount of logic you take from this kind of depends upon whether or not you subscribe to the "weak era" theory as most Nadal fans do, but that is subjective. The fact that all the surfaces have slowed down is not.

For example, I do not think it's a coincidence that 2 guys have completed the career slam in recent years (with perhaps a 3rd to follow) when it was only done 4 times in history before that. Federer and Nadal are greater than your average players obviously, but there have been plenty of great players who didn't complete the CGS. Borg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe to name a few, and by today's standards, none besides Connors would have completed it anyway because they didn't win the AO mostly because they didn't care about it in the first place.

Yeah I changed it back to 5.

And even if the statistic is flawed, going forward, you cant change the fact that Nadal has done it 9 times (at least once at every slam). And Nadal rarely being ranked no. 1 has nothing to do with it because we're talking about beating the best player in the world besides yourself. So, Nadal's top competition has been more consistent than Federer's top competition.

Federer wasn't the huge favorite against Nadal at 2006 or 2007 Wimbledon? I'd say definitely, so by your logic, his only impressive win was beating Djokovic at 2012 Wimbledon.

 

[mike danny]

I think you had it right the first time. It's 5 because he beat Novak at Wimbledon in 2012.

Anyways, it's an impressive stat from Nadal, to be sure, but it has to be said, all this shows is basically a top heavy era where upsets are uncommon. Look at AO 2014. Wawrinka upsets Djokovic so technically Nadal does not get the opportunity to beat the #2 player when he's #1. So his conversion rate for a stat like this would've gone down even if he had won the AO. That's how flawed this statistic is.

Plus, Nadal did not give Federer the opportunity to improve this stat because he wasn't making AO and USO finals when he was #2. The rankings said Nadal was #2 on clay, but he wasn't really. The 2005 and 2006 RG titles are impressive to me, but every RG after that? Not really, in terms of this stat IMO. And again, at least Federer gave Nadal that opportunity. He wouldn't get it if all Federer ever done was lose in SF's and QF's at RG for example. 2008 Wimbledon was also impressive. Maybe 2012 RG, but that's debatable.

So that's 3 slams out of 9 that I would deem "impressive." Nadal was the favourite in the other 6 he won while not ranked #1 anyway. The other 3, Nadal won when he was ranked #1 (given that we're excluding 2010 RG).

In fairness, Federer was also a big favourite I would say against Hewitt(#2) at USO 2004 and Roddick at Wimbledon 2005. So that makes Federer's total 3 out of 15 slams where he either beat the #2 when he was number #1, or #1 and wasn't a huge favourite at the time

Safin took out #1 Roddick at AO 2004. Safin is pretty good I would say. Every other slam, Federer won while being ranked #1 except for the 2008 USO, 2009 RG and 2009 Wimbledon, and as others have stated, it's kind of hard to beat the #1 when you are the #1.

In any case, it is hard to deny that surface homogenization has not played a role. Yes the surfaces are still different, but what surface homogenization has done is make the guys that would be threats on faster surfaces like Tsonga, Berdych, and even JMDP almost null. Of course, Federer has benefited from this also in that sense, but not as much. That was why I mentioned a guy like Safin at AO 2004. Because back then the surfaces were not nearly as homogenized as today. Of course, the amount of logic you take from this kind of depends upon whether or not you subscribe to the "weak era" theory as most Nadal fans do, but that is subjective. The fact that all the surfaces have slowed down is not.

For example, I do not think it's a coincidence that 2 guys have completed the career slam in recent years (with perhaps a 3rd to follow) when it was only done 4 times in history before that. Federer and Nadal are greater than your average players obviously, but there have been plenty of great players who didn't complete the CGS. Borg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe to name a few, and by today's standards, none besides Connors would have completed it anyway because they didn't win the AO mostly because they didn't care about it in the first place.

Hewitt was no.2 at W 2005 but the W seeding skrewed him. He could have reached the final instead of meeting Fed in the semis.

Roddick was average that W so Hewitt missed a big chance of reaching the final due to W seeding

 

[mike danny]

Yeah I changed it back to 5.

And even if the statistic is flawed, going forward, you cant change the fact that Nadal has done it 9 times (at least once at every slam). And Nadal rarely being ranked no. 1 has nothing to do with it because we're talking about beating the best player in the world besides yourself. So, Nadal's top competition has been more consistent than Federer's top competition.

Federer wasn't the huge favorite against Nadal at 2006 or 2007 Wimbledon? I'd say definitely, so by your logic, his only impressive win was beating Djokovic at 2012 Wimbledon.

Probably because first his top competition was Federer who is known to be more consistent than Nadal.

Can't say the same for Rafa in 2005-2007

 

[NatF]

Yeah I changed it back to 5.

And even if the statistic is flawed, going forward, you cant change the fact that Nadal has done it 9 times (at least once at every slam). And Nadal rarely being ranked no. 1 has nothing to do with it because we're talking about beating the best player in the world besides yourself. So, Nadal's top competition has been more consistent than Federer's top competition.

Federer wasn't the huge favorite against Nadal at 2006 or 2007 Wimbledon? I'd say definitely, so by your logic, his only impressive win was beating Djokovic at 2012 Wimbledon.

There could be a variety of reasons why the top competition nowadays is more consistant though. Federer has beaten a long list of very good players in his slam runs often times facing more than one of them.

 

[TMF]

To compare, Federer has beat the #1 or #2 (when he was number 1), in 5 of his 17 victories. All at Wimbledon, Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal twice, and Djokovic.

Nadal has done this in 9 of his 13 wins. And at least once at each slam.

There's plenty of opportunities for Nadal to beat #1 ranked player since most of the time he's ranked #2 or below. OTOH, Fed can't play himself who was #1 for 302 weeks including 237 straight weeks. Even past prime Fed was #1 when he when he won 2010 AO.

 

[mike danny]

There could be a variety of reasons why the top competition nowadays is more consistant though. Federer has beaten a long list of very good players in his slam runs often times facing more than one of them.

It depends what you prefer. Is a matter of opinion. Federer beating multiple good players in a row to win a slam while Nadal beating one top tier player. It's everybody's choice

 

[Wynter]

That's why I said number 1 or number 2....

Now the stat is even, it's how many times did you beat the best player in the world other than yourself.

Federer 5 of 17, all on grass
Nadal 9 of 13, at least once at every slam

Of course the reason Fed didn't play Number 2 is because he was number 1 and Nadal had already been eliminated 75% of the time roughly

Meanwhile Rafa has that because Fed could consistently make finals. So you're dragging down Fed for Nadal's failures?

Cool.

 

[beast of mallorca]

Of the slam titles Nadal won, he was ranked #1 in the following:
2009 Australian Open
2010 Wimbledon
2010 US Open
2011 Roland Garros

So which of the remaining 9 slam titles did Nadal beat #1 at?
2005 Roland Garros = Federer
2006 Roland Garros = Federer
2007 Roland Garros = Federer
2008 Roland Garros = Federer
2008 Wimbledon = Federer
2012 Roland Garros = Djokovic
2013 Roland Garros = Djokovic
2013 US Open = Djokovic

So the only slam title Nadal didn't beat #1 at was:
2010 Roland Garros

And there surely is no greater feeling than beating Soderling (a year after Soderling inflicted Nadal's only Roland Garros loss ever).

One of the many reasons many Fed fanatics hate Rafa soooo MUCH.........:twisted:

 

[mike danny]

To compare, Federer has beat the #1 or #2 (when he was number 1), in 5 of his 17 victories. All at Wimbledon, Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal twice, and Djokovic.

Nadal has done this in 9 of his 13 wins. And at least once at each slam.

This is why i admire fed's W accomplishments.

Some may say Sampras is better at W but Federer has faced the top ranked players more often than Sampras.

To give you a perspective, Fed has won 5 of his 7 W titles beating either the no.2 or the no.1 player: 2004, 2005, 2006,2007 and 2012. Sampras never had to beat the top ranked players that ofthen as Federer.

This is why i value his W titles a lot.

 

[mike danny]

One of the many reasons many Fed fanatics hate Rafa soooo MUCH.........:twisted:

Actually no. Why should i be mad Fed was no.1 during that time? I would be stupid to do that.

 

[drm025]

Probably because first his top competition was Federer who is known to be more consistent than Nadal.

Can't say the same for Rafa in 2005-2007

Can you blame Rafa given he was between 18 and 21?

Sure, he had great successes, 3 slams, 2 other finals, #2 for 3 straight years. He just wasn't consistent outside of clay yet. But he was still the 2nd best player in the world. So what does that say about the rest of the top competition in those years?

 

[NatF]

Can you blame Rafa given he was between 18 and 21?

Sure, he had great successes, 3 slams, 2 other finals, #2 for 3 straight years. He just wasn't consistent outside of clay yet. But he was still the 2nd best player in the world. So what does that say about the rest of the top competition in those years?

It says nothing about the top competition in the world. You had Federer mopping up nearly everything off clay and Nadal taking anything on clay. There's no space for anyone even great players to win lots of points.

 

[drm025]

This is why i admire fed's W accomplishments.

Some may say Sampras is better at W but Federer has faced the top ranked players more often than Sampras.

To give you a perspective, Fed has won 5 of his 7 W titles beating either the no.2 or the no.1 player: 2004, 2005, 2006,2007 and 2012. Sampras never had to beat the top ranked players that ofthen as Federer.

This is why i value his W titles a lot.

Do you value Nadal's RG titles in the same token? He has done this for 6 of his 8 titles.

Also, was Nadal really the 2nd best grass courter in the world in 2006 and 2007? Debatable. Nadal always beat the 2nd best clay courter, Federer from 2005-2008, Djokovic in 2012 and 2013.

 

[mike danny]

Can you blame Rafa given he was between 18 and 21?

Sure, he had great successes, 3 slams, 2 other finals, #2 for 3 straight years. He just wasn't consistent outside of clay yet. But he was still the 2nd best player in the world. So what does that say about the rest of the top competition in those years?

Well probalby because Hewitt and Safin completely fell off in 2006 . They were the top players in 2004-2005 together with Roddick who slumped in 2006.

2006 was a weak year. Davydenko and Blake in the top 4 says it all. But the top ranked players from 2004-2005 completely fell off or were in a slump.

 

[drm025]

It says nothing about the top competition in the world. You had Federer mopping up nearly everything off clay and Nadal taking anything on clay. There's no space for anyone even great players to win lots of points.

But remember clay is such a small part of the season right? The other players had way more opportunities to pass Nadal. And nobody loss to Fed in every big tournament of the season off of clay. Or they probably would have been number 2.

 

[merwy]

Not gonna lie, that's a pretty cool stat.

 

[mike danny]

Do you value Nadal's RG titles in the same token? He has done this for 6 of his 8 titles.

Also, was Nadal really the 2nd best grass courter in the world in 2006 and 2007? Debatable. Nadal always beat the 2nd best clay courter, Federer from 2005-2008, Djokovic in 2012 and 2013.

Yes he was. He took the no.2 spot after the guys from 2004-2005 fell off.

In 2007 he proved that it was not an accident he reached the final in 2006

 

[Steve0904]

Yeah I changed it back to 5.

And even if the statistic is flawed, going forward, you cant change the fact that Nadal has done it 9 times (at least once at every slam). And Nadal rarely being ranked no. 1 has nothing to do with it because we're talking about beating the best player in the world besides yourself. So, Nadal's top competition has been more consistent than Federer's top competition.

Federer wasn't the huge favorite against Nadal at 2006 or 2007 Wimbledon? I'd say definitely, so by your logic, his only impressive win was beating Djokovic at 2012 Wimbledon.

As I said, the logic you take from it depends on whether you subscribe to the "weak era" theory or the idea that surface homogenization has helped top players be more consistent. I'm inclined to go with the latter, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.

 

[NatF]

But remember clay is such a small part of the season right? The other players had way more opportunities to pass Nadal. And nobody loss to Fed in every big tournament of the season off of clay. Or they probably would have been number 2.

Clay has 3 masters and a slam plus numerous other tournaments. It's not small at all. Nadal played 60% of his matches on clay in 2005 for example.

You get more points for winning tournaments than being the runner up and unless your peak Federer (or 2011 Djokovic or 2013 Nadal) you won't be constantly making finals at every single tournament you enter. You're being unreasonable here. No other era is judged so harshly. Look back throughout the decades you'll find it very rare to have 2 players both constantly making all the finals together...

Even last year Djokovic didn't make a final between MC and the USO. Thats a big stretch...

 

[mike danny]

Clay has 3 masters and a slam plus numerous other tournaments. It's not small at all. Nadal played 60% of his matches on clay in 2005 for example.

You get more points for winning tournaments than being the runner up and unless your peak Federer (or 2011 Djokovic or 2013 Nadal) you won't be constantly making finals at every single tournament you enter. You're being unreasonable here. No other era is judged so harshly. Look back throughout the decades you'll find it very rare to have 2 players both constantly making all the finals together...

Even last year Djokovic didn't make a final between MC and the USO. Thats a big stretch...

In 2005 out of 11 titles, Nadal won 8 of them on clay. When you dominate clay this much obviously it boosts your ranking.

Outside of clay, Federer's competition was still Hewitt, Roddick, Safin ,Nalbandian

 

[NatF]

In 2005 out of 11 titles, Nadal won 8 of them on clay. When you dominate clay this much obviously it boosts your ranking.

Outside of clay, Federer's competition was still Hewitt, Roddick, Safin ,Nalbandian

Don't forget Agassi, Federer met him 4 times in 2005 I think.

 

[Steve0904]

One of the many reasons many Fed fanatics hate Rafa soooo MUCH.........:twisted:

Fed fanatics yes, but in this case it is not so much about hating Rafa as it is about disliking some of his fans who bring up relatively useless stats like this one. Of course, it goes both ways, but considering this is a thread aimed at pumping up Nadal with a flawed statistic, I feel obliged to point it out.

 

[jhhachamp]

Of the slam titles Nadal won, he was ranked #1 in the following:
2009 Australian Open
2010 Wimbledon
2010 US Open
2011 Roland Garros

So which of the remaining 9 slam titles did Nadal beat #1 at?
2005 Roland Garros = Federer
2006 Roland Garros = Federer
2007 Roland Garros = Federer
2008 Roland Garros = Federer
2008 Wimbledon = Federer
2012 Roland Garros = Djokovic
2013 Roland Garros = Djokovic
2013 US Open = Djokovic

So the only slam title Nadal didn't beat #1 at was:
2010 Roland Garros

And there surely is no greater feeling than beating Soderling (a year after Soderling inflicted Nadal's only Roland Garros loss ever).

Interesting stat...but in my opinion it is misleading and really shows more about the number 1 player than it does about Nadal. It shows that the number 1 player was a very great player who would not lose to anyone except for another great player...that in order to win any major you would have to go through him.

 

[Steve0904]

Clay has 3 masters and a slam plus numerous other tournaments. It's not small at all. Nadal played 60% of his matches on clay in 2005 for example.

You get more points for winning tournaments than being the runner up and unless your peak Federer (or 2011 Djokovic or 2013 Nadal) you won't be constantly making finals at every single tournament you enter. You're being unreasonable here. No other era is judged so harshly. Look back throughout the decades you'll find it very rare to have 2 players both constantly making all the finals together...

Even last year Djokovic didn't make a final between MC and the USO. Thats a big stretch...

He made the Wimbledon final in between that, and everybody knows Nadal-Djokovic was the de facto final at RG.

 

[NatF]

He made the Wimbledon final in between that, and everybody knows Nadal-Djokovic was the de facto final at RG.

AH yes, my mistake. Thank you, hate it when I forget stuff... Outside the slams he wasn't great though. Even before Monte Carlo he went out meekly to Haas.

 

[drm025]

Clay has 3 masters and a slam plus numerous other tournaments. It's not small at all. Nadal played 60% of his matches on clay in 2005 for example.

You get more points for winning tournaments than being the runner up and unless your peak Federer (or 2011 Djokovic or 2013 Nadal) you won't be constantly making finals at every single tournament you enter. You're being unreasonable here. No other era is judged so harshly. Look back throughout the decades you'll find it very rare to have 2 players both constantly making all the finals together...

Even last year Djokovic didn't make a final between MC and the USO. Thats a big stretch...

Well in comparison to now, it's a huge difference. We haven't seen an era with top players as consistent as Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray (to a lesser degree). Whether homogenization as to do with it or not, it's pretty much a fact that there hasnt been this many top, consistent, players playing at the same time.

 

[Steve0904]

AH yes, my mistake. Thank you, hate it when I forget stuff... Outside the slams he wasn't great though. Even before Monte Carlo he went out meekly to Haas.

Yeah, he wasn't that great. He's definitely dropped off since 2011.

 

[NatF]

Well in comparison to now, it's a huge difference. We haven't seen an era with top players as consistent as Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray (to a lesser degree). Whether homogenization as to do with it or not, it's pretty much a fact that there hasnt been this many top, consistent, players playing at the same time.

Federer and Murray were non contenders for large parts of last year. In fact 2011 is the only year you could claim that there was really a consistant big 4.

The top players are more consistant on clay these days, that's the real change. Otherwise I don't see a huge difference. Wawrinka has either nearly taken out or beaten Djokovic in the last 3 hardcourt slams. He's not better than the guys that were around in Federer's era. Nadal has been a no show on grass for 2 years and I think Roddick and Hewitt would match up well against Murray and Djokovic.

You can't ignore that homogenization has helped the players of recent years with consistancy.

 

[Steve0904]

Well in comparison to now, it's a huge difference. We haven't seen an era with top players as consistent as Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray (to a lesser degree). Whether homogenization as to do with it or not, it's pretty much a fact that there hasnt been this many top, consistent, players playing at the same time.

But homogenization is probably the main reason why these 4 are so consistent hence why we've never seen it before. Do you see the problem there?

And yes, there was at least 1 other time in history when the top players were relatively consistent. Borg-McEnroe-Connors were pretty good at it, but upsets were more common then probably because surfaces had more variability. This logic is so overused it's not funny. It's the "I think everything from this era has to be the best because I seen it" line of thinking. By your logic, because of consistency Djokovic is better than a guy like Connors or even Borg.

 

[NatF]

The guys that took out Roddick in the hardcourt slams in 2004 probably would have beaten Djokovic from 2013 too...

 

[Steve0904]

The guys that took out Roddick in the hardcourt slams in 2004 probably would have beaten Djokovic from 2013 too...

Safin and Johanssen (sp?). Yeah, I'd give them a fair shot for sure. JJ served bombs in that match against Roddick, and Djokovic's troubles with a guy like Isner are well documented to make a comparison.

As an aside, I believe Djokovic has admitted that the change to plexicushion at the AO has in part helped him win his titles, and Federer mentions surface homogenization quite a bit, and says it's helped the top guys including himself be more consistent.

 

[drm025]

Federer and Murray were non contenders for large parts of last year. In fact 2011 is the only year you could claim that there was really a consistant big 4.

The top players are more consistant on clay these days, that's the real change. Otherwise I don't see a huge difference. Wawrinka has either nearly taken out or beaten Djokovic in the last 3 hardcourt slams. He's not better than the guys that were around in Federer's era. Nadal has been a no show on grass for 2 years and I think Roddick and Hewitt would match up well against Murray and Djokovic.

You can't ignore that homogenization has helped the players of recent years with consistancy.

I mean you still see in 2013, every slam, masters, and WTFs, was won by a big 4 member, obviously Federer struggled.

And there's been a consistent big 4 from 2008-2013, of the 84 combined slams + masters + WTFs in those 6 years, the big 4 won 75 of them.
Federer-14
Nadal-27
Djokovic-23
Murray-11

The 9 winners outside of the big 4 were Davydenko (3 times), Tsonga, Del Potro, Ljubicic, Roddick, Soderling, and Ferrer.

 

[Fed_Djoker_Fan]

Pretty awesome feat I say

 

[jhhachamp]

But homogenization is probably the main reason why these 4 are so consistent hence why we've never seen it before. Do you see the problem there?

The top 4 players are not so consistent. Murray is not consistent and has done nothing of note on clay. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have been so consistent because they are very good players and can adjust well to many different conditions.

 

[Steve0904]

The top 4 players are not so consistent. Murray is not consistent and has done nothing of note on clay. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have been so consistent because they are very good players and can adjust well to many different conditions.

Well I would say yes and no. Great players yes, but they've definitely benefited from the surfaces all playing closer to the same than they used to.

For example, now the game is all baseline and these players are all as consistent as they are because they can basically play the same game on any surface and be successful IMO. It's not like in Borg's time for example when you played baseline at RG and HAD to S&V to be successful at Wimbledon.

As a bit of an aside, I think people get a bit caught up in the whole homogenization thing a little bit because you sometimes see people say "All the surfaces play the same, or "Second week Wimbledon is green clay." Of course, both these statements are wildly incorrect, but the HC's have been slowed down as has the grass. It doesn't mean they all play the same, it just makes it an easier adjustment and the biggest thing here is that it cuts down dramatically on the number of upsets.

 

[MichaelNadal]

To defeat the number one player in that many slams is very impressive. Nadal is probably the greatest big match player I've ever seen so kudos to him.

Thanks for validating my sig

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Thanks for validating my sig

Nadal reminds me more of this guy.

Way too many similiarities between them. Two of the most dominant in their fields. Have fans that love them with a passion and hate them with a passion. Sometimes called on trick ponies or one dimensional by the haters, but still overcome all the odds. Ruthless and dominant on the biggest stages in their respective fields. Both rose to the top in the spring of 2005 and stayed up there ever since...Yep, Nadal and Cena have more in common that I thought.

THE CHAMP IS HERE!!!!!!!

 

[Russeljones]

Of the slam titles Nadal won, he was ranked #1 in the following:
2009 Australian Open
2010 Wimbledon
2010 US Open
2011 Roland Garros

So which of the remaining 9 slam titles did Nadal beat #1 at?
2005 Roland Garros = Federer
2006 Roland Garros = Federer
2007 Roland Garros = Federer
2008 Roland Garros = Federer
2008 Wimbledon = Federer
2012 Roland Garros = Djokovic
2013 Roland Garros = Djokovic
2013 US Open = Djokovic

So the only slam title Nadal didn't beat #1 at was:
2010 Roland Garros

And there surely is no greater feeling than beating Soderling (a year after Soderling inflicted Nadal's only Roland Garros loss ever).

Not being the #1 himself for such a long time during his career, he kinda had to always beat the #1, didn't he?

 

[furryballs]

Nadal reminds me more of this guy.

Way too many similiarities between them. Two of the most dominant in their fields. Have fans that love them with a passion and hate them with a passion. Sometimes called on trick ponies or one dimensional by the haters, but still overcome all the odds. Ruthless and dominant on the biggest stages in their respective fields. Both rose to the top in the spring of 2005 and stayed up there ever since...Yep, Nadal and Cena have more in common that I thought.

THE CHAMP IS HERE!!!!!!!

both drugged up to the gunnels as well

 

[Deleted member 77403]

both drugged up to the gunnels as well

Well I am not going to accuse them of that.

But both have an OCD problem also. Both had career threatening injuries (I remember when Cena fractured his neck - I was there for that match and saw it happen live, the guy comes to work the next day), you have the ************* and the Cenation.

And their arrival was marked in the same month of the same year. April 2005. Nadal with Miami , and Cena with Wrestlemania 21. Scary parallels.

 

[The_Order]

Not being the #1 himself for such a long time during his career, he kinda had to always beat the #1, didn't he?

Nope, in fact he has won every major as the #1 player at least once. Pretty sure the only guy to have ever done that...

 

[The_Order]

both drugged up to the gunnels as well

Stupid comment. You must have the body of a little boy to think Nadal's using.

 

[cknobman]

Stupid comment. You must have the body of a little boy to think Nadal's using.

You are naive to think that body shape or size is the only indicator of using PEDs

 

[jhhachamp]

Well I would say yes and no. Great players yes, but they've definitely benefited from the surfaces all playing closer to the same than they used to.

For example, now the game is all baseline and these players are all as consistent as they are because they can basically play the same game on any surface and be successful IMO. It's not like in Borg's time for example when you played baseline at RG and HAD to S&V to be successful at Wimbledon.

As a bit of an aside, I think people get a bit caught up in the whole homogenization thing a little bit because you sometimes see people say "All the surfaces play the same, or "Second week Wimbledon is green clay." Of course, both these statements are wildly incorrect, but the HC's have been slowed down as has the grass. It doesn't mean they all play the same, it just makes it an easier adjustment and the biggest thing here is that it cuts down dramatically on the number of upsets.

Yes, it may have helped somewhat, but I think the effect is overstated...especially for Federer who had to adapt his game a bit from the start of his career. It has benefited Nadal and Djokovic more, but does not seem to have benefited Murray as much.

Or, perhaps it has benefited Murray a fair amount as well, and he would have been even less consistent if the courts had not changed.

 

[The_Order]

You are naive to think that body shape or size is the only indicator of using PEDs

Lol check out your avatar. Photoshopped Nadal's arms clearly implying that he takes steroids to get arms to the size he has. I guess you've got noodle arms as well then...

 

[Russeljones]

Nope, in fact he has won every major as the #1 player at least once. Pretty sure the only guy to have ever done that...

Nice try, my assertion stands.

 

[TMF]

Nope, in fact he has won every major as the #1 player at least once. Pretty sure the only guy to have ever done that...

It must be suck for Graf too since she doesn't get much chance to beat the #1 player since she spent a record 377 weeks at #1. LOL

 

[Rock Strongo]

Still, the similarities of these posts to some other posters seem so uncanny...