Nadal is ahead of Federer in Slams adjusted by difficulty

#53
What is with many Djoker fans trying to hide their misery with all this fake Nadal support and Co GOAT narrative ??

Just imagine if Novak had beaten Rafa. The count would have been 16-17 with 2 Nole slams and we would have been hearing how Nadal has been passed over .

Glad Nadal won and the gap is 18-15 , which is substantial
MOST of them aren’t fans of anyone—they’re just fans of ANYONE who beats Federer,
 
#57
It's simply not a coincidence that Roger won 12/18 slams before the emergence of Djokodal and then from age 27 on he won 8/46. We all know that Roger fattened up on a weakera.
After Rafa won his first (i.e. when competition first started to pop up):

Slams:
Rafa: 18
Fed: 16

YE # 1:
Fed: 4
Rafa: 4

Weeks at # 1:
Fed: 239
Rafa 196

Slams won the year they turned 33:
Rafa: 18
Fed: 17

And Fed still had the run of the hard court slams that Rafa didn't find his feet on until 2009 at age 22. Good luck to Fed, he took his opportunity when it was presented, but the numbers are increasingly and inevitably falling to Djoker & Rafa because they are just better.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
#60
  • Title Difficulty - Factor of difficulty to win the title compared to a difficulty for an average title winner to win an average tournament event of the same tournament level (calculation steps: first, probabilities to win the title for an average title winner of the same tournament level are calculated based on average Elo Ratings of the title winners as well as Elo Ratings of the opponents the actual winner has faced (P = 1 / (1 + 10 ^ ((AvgWinnerElo - ActualOpponentElo) / 400)); second, difficulty to win the title is calculated as the sum of inverse probabilities from the first step; third, title difficulty is normalized so that the average difficulty of the same tournament level is 1). Example: Difficulty Factor of 1.315 means that a title was 31.5% harder to win compared to an average title of the same tournament level.
This is a good mathematical description of what is obvious to any objective person from common sense perspective. Field was much weaker in the absence than in the presence of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Federer played Djokovic/ Nadal/Murray field plus pre-Djokovic/ Nadal/Murray field so there is nothing hypothetical here. We know exactly how he has done in period 1 and period 2. People sometimes say that you can beat who is in front of you. Federer faced same field as Djokovic/ Nadal/Murray and he came up third, which is great, but Djokovic and Nadal are better.
 
#61
And Fed still had the run of the hard court slams that Rafa didn't find his feet on until 2009 at age 22. Good luck to Fed, he took his opportunity when it was presented, but the numbers are increasingly and inevitably falling to Djoker & Rafa because they are just better.
The numbers are increasingly and inevitability falling to Djoker and Rafa because Fed is old and there is no one to challenge them. Nadal was winning HC masters and Djokovic was winning and making finals at HC slams before 2009. Nadal was making Wimbledon finals since 2006. Nadal came up short at the slams, but it wasn't because he wasn't mature on either surface. Federer has a higher career winning % on grass and HC than Nadal. It's not even close. Nadal is only where he's at because of clay. Djokovic is where he's at because Fed got old. Djokovic peaked in Fed's 13th year on tour. 13 years. You guys really are something else.
 
#62
This is a good mathematical description of what is obvious to any objective person from common sense perspective. Field was much weaker in the absence than in the presence of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Federer played Djokovic/ Nadal/Murray field plus pre-Djokovic/ Nadal/Murray field so there is nothing hypothetical here. We know exactly how he has done in period 1 and period 2. People sometimes say that you can beat who is in front of you. Federer faced same field as Djokovic/ Nadal/Murray and he came up third, which is great, but Djokovic and Nadal are better.
Yes
 
#63
The numbers are increasingly and inevitability falling to Djoker and Rafa because Fed is old and there is no one to challenge them. Nadal was winning HC masters and Djokovic was winning and making finals at HC slams before 2009. Nadal was making Wimbledon finals since 2006. Nadal came up short at the slams, but it wasn't because he wasn't mature on either surface. Federer has a higher career winning % on grass and HC than Nadal. It's not even close. Nadal is only where he's at because of clay. Djokovic is where he's at because Fed got old. Djokovic peaked in Fed's 13th year on tour. 13 years. You guys really are something else.
I would suggest that it is reasonable to say that a Nadal pre-the age of 22 was still finding his feet at the hard court slams considering it took Fed & Djoker around that long to win their first slam. His game was still developing off clay and the slams on hard were too big a challenge for him at that point.

In terms of the numbers catching up because Fed is old - that is not exactly true. Rafa has just won his 18th slam a couple of years before Fed could. That doesn't have anything to do with Fed ageing. Remember also that Djoker and Nadal have each other to content with for slams moving foward which can't be understated and will hinder both as they make a run for the slam record.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#64
After Rafa won his first (i.e. when competition first started to pop up):

Slams:
Rafa: 18
Fed: 16

YE # 1:
Fed: 4
Rafa: 4

Weeks at # 1:
Fed: 239
Rafa 196

Slams won the year they turned 33:
Rafa: 18
Fed: 17

And Fed still had the run of the hard court slams that Rafa didn't find his feet on until 2009 at age 22. Good luck to Fed, he took his opportunity when it was presented, but the numbers are increasingly and inevitably falling to Djoker & Rafa because they are just better.
Lol. What numbers favor Weakeraovic?
 
#65
Nadal has 6 slams (of 14 finals) and 9 masters off clay. Wawrinka has 2 slams (of 2 finals) and 0 masters off clay. They're hardly comparable
6 slams as opposed to 12 on clay

1 AO
2 Wimb
3 USO

So Nadal is equal with wawa at the AO
Equal with Djokovic and behind Fed at Wimb (also = with Murray)
And again, behind both Djokovic and Fed at the USO

How people are already calling this guy the overall GOAT is beyond me.

Edit: Nadal is even behind Agassi at the AO and Sampras at Wimb and USO. He’s behind so many off clay. This renders him a clay specialist, not GOAT overall. In order to be overall GOAT, he needs to be equal best on the majority of the surfaces.
Fed is 1 behind at the AO, best at Wimb and equal best at USO (5 in a row too).
 
Last edited:

Towny

Professional
#68
6 slams as opposed to 12 on clay

1 AO
2 Wimb
3 USO

So Nadal is equal with wawa at the AO
Behind both Djokovic and Fed at Wimb (= with Murray)
And again, behind both Djokovic and Fed at the USO

How people are already calling this guy the overall GOAT is beyond me.
I don't think he is GOAT. Federer is clearly ahead in my book. However, let's give credit where it's due.

Nadal is equal with Djokovic at the USO, not behind. He is equal with Wawrinka at the AO, but far ahead everywhere else.

If we look at how many slams ATGs won outside there best slam, we have:

Federer(Wim) 12
Djokovic(AO) 8
Sampras(Wim) 7
Nadal(RG) 6
Borg(RG) 5
Lendl(USO) 5
Agassi(AO) 4
Wilander(RG) 4
Edberg(AO) 4
Connors(USO) 3
McEnroe(USO) 3
Becker(Wim) 3

When you consider surfaces rather than slams, it becomes:

Federer(Grass) 12
Sampras(Grass) 7
Nadal(Clay) 6
Djokovic(Hard) 5
Borg(Clay) 5

Nadal actually comes out pretty well. Clearly below Federer, but pretty good compared to other ATGs
 
#69
I don't think he is GOAT. Federer is clearly ahead in my book. However, let's give credit where it's due.

Nadal is equal with Djokovic at the USO, not behind. He is equal with Wawrinka at the AO, but far ahead everywhere else.

If we look at how many slams ATGs won outside there best slam, we have:

Federer(Wim) 12
Djokovic(AO) 8
Sampras(Wim) 7
Nadal(RG) 6
Borg(RG) 5
Lendl(USO) 5
Agassi(AO) 4
Wilander(RG) 4
Edberg(AO) 4
Connors(USO) 3
McEnroe(USO) 3
Becker(Wim) 3

When you consider surfaces rather than slams, it becomes:

Federer(Grass) 12
Sampras(Grass) 7
Nadal(Clay) 6
Djokovic(Hard) 5
Borg(Clay) 5

Nadal actually comes out pretty well. Clearly below Federer, but pretty good compared to other ATGs
I agree.

I’m just questioning how people (not you) are already calling him overall GOAT when he’s so far behind Federer is numerous categories.
 
#71
  • Title Difficulty - Factor of difficulty to win the title compared to a difficulty for an average title winner to win an average tournament event of the same tournament level (calculation steps: first, probabilities to win the title for an average title winner of the same tournament level are calculated based on average Elo Ratings of the title winners as well as Elo Ratings of the opponents the actual winner has faced (P = 1 / (1 + 10 ^ ((AvgWinnerElo - ActualOpponentElo) / 400)); second, difficulty to win the title is calculated as the sum of inverse probabilities from the first step; third, title difficulty is normalized so that the average difficulty of the same tournament level is 1). Example: Difficulty Factor of 1.315 means that a title was 31.5% harder to win compared to an average title of the same tournament level.
It's settled then. Why even play sport at all these days, just run the maths and we know who the greatest is without even playing.



It's all so tiresome
 
#73
If we use a Fibonacci sequence of points, where every point played on a grass court which goes over 7 shots is the sum of the previous 2 points played on a clay court which goes over 16 shots, the ratio of each point in the Fibonacci sequence produces a mathematical value of Φ=1.6180339887…

This ratio has been historically used by mathematically inclined tennis experts to calculate "GOAT". It's simple, just do the math!

Unfortunately, Phi (Φ) is like pi (π) in the sense that it is an irrational number since there is no equivalent fraction for Φ and its decimal keeps going and never stops ... just like this GOAT argument. ;)
 
#74
I don't think he is GOAT. Federer is clearly ahead in my book. However, let's give credit where it's due.

Nadal is equal with Djokovic at the USO, not behind. He is equal with Wawrinka at the AO, but far ahead everywhere else.

If we look at how many slams ATGs won outside there best slam, we have:

Federer(Wim) 12
Djokovic(AO) 8
Sampras(Wim) 7
Nadal(RG) 6
Borg(RG) 5
Lendl(USO) 5
Agassi(AO) 4
Wilander(RG) 4
Edberg(AO) 4
Connors(USO) 3
McEnroe(USO) 3
Becker(Wim) 3

When you consider surfaces rather than slams, it becomes:

Federer(Grass) 12
Sampras(Grass) 7
Nadal(Clay) 6
Djokovic(Hard) 5
Borg(Clay) 5

Nadal actually comes out pretty well. Clearly below Federer, but pretty good compared to other ATGs
Good post. Nadal's 6 major titles away from his best surface is respectable. It just seems small because of the video game numbers he's piled up at the French. Also agree that Fed is the GOAT.
 
#75
It's simply not a coincidence that Roger won 12/18 slams before the emergence of Djokodal and then from age 27 on he won 8/46. We all know that Roger fattened up on a weakera.
By this logic Nadal has won 12 of his 18, "fattened up" in the weakest clay court era of all time.

Evidence? No man had ever won more than 7 titles at any major previously until Fed came along. And then one guy comes along and wins a single major 12 times in 15 years. There's no explanation other than it must be the weakest ever for any specific major. Further supporting evidence: if he wasn't just that good on clay and was a legit GOAT contender, how come no-one else with 8+ majors has ever had such a lop-sided grouping of majors towards one surface? No-one comes even close to his lop-sidedness.

Conclusion: Weak era arguments are for the terminally stupid.
 
Last edited:
#77
The numbers are increasingly and inevitability falling to Djoker and Rafa because Fed is old and there is no one to challenge them. Nadal was winning HC masters and Djokovic was winning and making finals at HC slams before 2009. Nadal was making Wimbledon finals since 2006. Nadal came up short at the slams, but it wasn't because he wasn't mature on either surface. Federer has a higher career winning % on grass and HC than Nadal. It's not even close. Nadal is only where he's at because of clay. Djokovic is where he's at because Fed got old. Djokovic peaked in Fed's 13th year on tour. 13 years. You guys really are something else.
There is elo evidence that suggests Nadal was consistently getting better after 2005. He is 120 points higher at the end of 2008 compared to the end of 2005. I'm not aware of any published elo data that challenges the ascendancy of Nadal's ability over those years. Nadal was a one of a kind talent at age 19, but he was even better at age 22, and not insignificantly so.

It's not even an unusual pattern. The age curve predicts most male tennis players peak around 23-25.

EDIT: http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/category/aging-trends/, this source has the typical male peak a bit later. All I'm saying is that Nadal got better after 2005. Since you are mentioning results from Nadal in 2005, I'll mention that when looking at Nadal's performance using conventional metrics, you would still catch the increase in Nadal's performance from 2005-2008. In year end ATP ranking points adjusted for the changes made in 2009 for interpretation purposes, you see a slight dip from 2005 to 2006 and then a substantial uptick in 2007 and another in 2008. Respectively, 9053, 8493, 10,896, and 12,862.
 
Last edited:
#79
It is looking increasingly likely that in just over 12 months time Djoker would have taken Fed's weeks at # 1 record and he will almost certainly pass Fed for YE # 1 this year to join Pete on 6 and possibly equal Fed's WTF tally at 6.
Awesome, that puts the claim to GOAThood even further out of reach for Nadal
 
Last edited:

thrust

Hall of Fame
#80
Wawrinka has 33% of nadals USO count, and Wawrinka has the same amount of AOs that Nadal does.

Nadal is basically a (more boring) Spanish Wawrinka outside of clay.
Unfortunately, however, Clay is a long established tennis court surface and the FO SLAM is played on clay. Like it or not, Nadal is credited with 18 slams by the ATP or ITF.
 
#83
There is elo evidence that suggests Nadal was consistently getting better after 2005. He is 120 points higher at the end of 2008 compared to the end of 2005. I'm not aware of any published elo data that challenges the ascendancy of Nadal's ability over those years. Nadal was a one of a kind talent at age 19, but he was even better at age 22, and not insignificantly so.

It's not even an unusual pattern. The age curve predicts most male tennis players peak around 23-25.

EDIT: http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/category/aging-trends/, this source has the typical male peak a bit later. All I'm saying is that Nadal got better after 2005. Since you are mentioning results from Nadal in 2005, I'll mention that when looking at Nadal's performance using conventional metrics, you would still catch the increase in Nadal's performance from 2005-2008. In year end ATP ranking points adjusted for the changes made in 2009 for interpretation purposes, you see a slight dip from 2005 to 2006 and then a substantial uptick in 2007 and another in 2008. Respectively, 9053, 8493, 10,896, and 12,862.
Without going into too much detail (because I've been posting a lot) I'll just say that my point was more about the concept of Nadal being so called non existent even though he was always there kind of thing. Nadal improved on HC over the years and I would be a liar if I didn't admit that. It still doesn't give him a free ride through the so called weak era.
 
#85
#87
Not entirely sure how this is calculated.

Using average ELO to calculate the "difficulty" doesn't take into account the form that players were in at the time, right? I guess that's something difficult to measure, maybe ELO rating at the time of the match would be slightly more accurate? Should also probably consider ELO by surface rather than overall. There's also the concept of ELO inflation.

I dunno... People are going to see what they want to see. Stuff like this can be interesting, but the numbers don't actually prove anything.
 
#94
He’s the greatest HC tennis player of all time for sure. Grass he has the numbers at Wimbledon too, despite the fact I rate Sampras close to equal on faster Wimbledon grass.
I'm almost with you.

Sampras the greatest grass court player. Federer level with Djokovic as the co-greats of hard courts.
Nadal the greatest on clay.
Borg the greatest cross-channel champion.

And Laver the greatest all-Court player.
 
#95
I'm almost with you.
And Laver the greatest all-Court player.
Didn't he play and win mainly on grass? Also hes too different of a generation to discuss. Tennis was completely different then. There is not GOAT really just greatest of generation, so Laver isn't in discussions of this generation. Even comparing Sampras on Fed and grass has its issues. Diff era, arguably easier for Fed to get 7 wimbys then it was for Sampras, some arguements against that too, and some arguement for 7 is 7 8 is 8 etc
 
#96
This is all childish and silly. Numbers don't tell the whole story. There is never a level playing field. Federer Nadal and Djokovic each play differently. Comparisons are in the end pointless and actually meaningless. There is no one greatest player in the whole history of the game. it is a ridiculous idea.
 
#97
It is so interesting Djokovic is already at 17.08 on this list. This same logic will come back to bite Nadal Goatness argument. Djokovic road to his titles has been the toughest. So only two more for him and they will be all technically tied and Nole with more weeks at number 1 than Nadal and WTFs, better in the H2H, all Masters titles, 4 consecutive Slam, etc.. . Looking forward to see what Nadal fans will say. I am Fed fan and I love how every argument used against Federer for years can be used against Nadal now. What goes around comes around haha.
 
#98
I'm almost with you.

Sampras the greatest grass court player. Federer level with Djokovic as the co-greats of hard courts.
Nadal the greatest on clay.
Borg the greatest cross-channel champion.

And Laver the greatest all-Court player.
Well at least you give Federer some credit here.

GOAT would be for me someone who dominates all surfaces. If Federer had won a 2nd RG in 2006 or 2011 for example beating Nadal, I think you couldn’t dispute it.

As it stands he has the best argument. His overall records, playing style, aura, grace etc. He hasn’t been helped either by surfaces slowing down. Out of the modern players he’s above Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras for various reasons.

Going back, Laver is up there too.
 
Hahahaha

You guys are tragic. This proves nothing and it’s fundamentally flawed in its analysis.

Let’s analyse the gifting of slams through cupcake draws shall we? Oh, Nadal is the only one to have won a slam by not having to beat anyone inside the top 25? Colour me shocked!

But RAFA made it through Rublev. What a warrior!
I think it is fair that Rafa's draw difficulty level is rated higher. I mean look at USO '17 and FO'19 and compare that to the mugs that Fed beat at AO'17 , for instance.
 
Top