Nadal is ahead of Federer in Slams adjusted by difficulty

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
2007 was around the time Nadal began to show he was more than just a clay court specialist. Wimbledon 2007 Federer was at one stage two rounds ahead of Nadal (a rare event in a slam). Federer got a fourth round walkover from Tommy Haas, putting Fed into the quarters, while Nadal was still in the third round trying to finish his match with Robin Soderling. Playing day after day took its toll on Nadal (he had treatment on court towards the end of the final). Nadal lost the 2007 Wimbledon final, but Federer was right, Nadal had improved.
He won 3 HC M1000s before Wimbeldon 2007.
Reached the final on Miami 2005 and Wimbeldon 2006 and he played one of his best indoor matches in YEC 2006 vs a Federer in a straight sets loss.
 
He won 3 HC M1000s before Wimbeldon 2007.
Reached the final on Miami 2005 and Wimbeldon 2006 and he played one of his best indoor matches in YEC 2006 vs a Federer in a straight sets loss.
After 2007, Nadal won 2 Wimbledon titles, 3 US Open titles and 1 Australian Open title. Before 2008 Nadal didn't get beyond the quarters at the US Open or the Australian Open and reached 2 Wimbledon finals.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Don't worry, you are not the only one that makes such statements and then is unable to answer that question. It is a common problem.

:cool:
No child, if you are trying make a point, make it. Explain why you think that means he was at his peak in your misguided opinion. I'll wait on your reponse.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
[
After 2007, Nadal won 2 Wimbledon titles, 3 US Open titles and 1 Australian Open title. Before 2008 Nadal didn't get beyond the quarters at the US Open or the Australian Open and reached 2 Wimbledon finals.
He certainly became better after that as you rightly mentioned but the signs were visible earlier than that.
 

Pantera

Banned
Its not about age, but level of play. It makes no sense that Rafa doesnt count (according to some) as an ATG 2005-2007. As an example, Rafa played better on HC in 2005 than Federer did in 2013.
Its not so much about the actual tennis level, it is the mentality. A teenage Nadal was naïve and played off instinct not tactically so his best was never going to be before the age of 21. Same with all players, some indeed take a lot longer to mature, like Federer.
 

Pantera

Banned
Look at the players Federer lost to in those years. Roddick? Baghdatis? Come on. Federer had utterly dominated Roddick and had only lost to him once in 2003 up to that point. 2008 was a so-so year for Andy too, dropping as low as 9th in the world and only getting as high as 6th.
Yes but what puzzles me to this day is the sudden decline. As you say he was out of the blue losing to guys he used no bagel regularly. Nobody has ever actually addressed that, it was not too dissimilar to how Becker's serve seemed to lose its potency from 1991 onwards.
 

Pantera

Banned
A crazy Djokovic fan. Similar arguments though.
Has Federer ever done a book? I like players books (Nadals wasn't great too PC and way too early) as they often explain the reality of what caused losses to certain players in big moments.

I would love to see how Federer analysed his career post 2008 (still stellar by mere mortal standards but vastly inferior to 2003-2007).
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Has Federer ever done a book? I like players books (Nadals wasn't great too PC and way too early) as they often explain the reality of what caused losses to certain players in big moments.

I would love to see how Federer analysed his career post 2008 (still stellar by mere mortal standards but vastly inferior to 2003-2007).
Yes, he has.

Generally these books are good to get an interesting detail from what happened, rather than how and why it happened. They all know that it is an image thing and all share things that mostly enhance their image (yes, even Agassi). Relying on them to get a perspective is absolutely the wrong approach, if you want to know how these players interpret (and sometimes present) events.

:cool:
 

Pantera

Banned
Yes, he has.

Generally these books are good to get an interesting detail from what happened, rather than how and why it happened. They all know that it is an image thing and all share things that mostly enhance their image (yes, even Agassi). Relying on them to get a perspective is absolutely the wrong approach, if you want to know how these players interpret (and sometimes present) events.

:cool:
Please could you tell me the name of Federer's book...that's first item on Xmas list!!!

I thought Agassi book was woeful tbh, too much stuff in there that seemed embellished nonsense. Best ive read was Sampras and I loved his appendix with a short breakdown of his rivals games and h2h.

Nadal's was pointless, he wrote it way too early and needs to have a part 2 edition!
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Please could you tell me the name of Federer's book...that's first item on Xmas list!!!

I thought Agassi book was woeful tbh, too much stuff in there that seemed embellished nonsense. Best ive read was Sampras and I loved his appendix with a short breakdown of his rivals games and h2h.

Nadal's was pointless, he wrote it way too early and needs to have a part 2 edition!
Look for René Stauffer Roger Federer Die Biografie

However, you will be disappointed if you are looking for very peculiar insight or similar.

:cool:
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
I buy into this in theory, but how the hell is Murray only slightly above his 3. He's been screwed by difficulty and era more than any other player in history I would think. He is more of a 7 major type player in most eras IMO. Everything else SF's, even finals, weeks at #1 etc. He's got to have the most difficulty.
This is just the difficulty for Slams won (in Murray's case UO12, WI13, WI16), not for all Slams played.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
These stats have their logic. Thanks for providing them.
They measure the strength of the slams based on the ranking of the winners' opponents. Which is a pretty fair measurement.
In fact the slight margin of Nadal should be correct. On an average basis Nadal's opponents in his slams were better ranked (No 41.1) vs Fed's opponents (No 45.2). The average top 10 opponent of Nadal is 4.4, the Fed's one - 5.8. Djoko has the toughest opponents with a ratio of 4.3.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
These stats have their logic. Thanks for providing them.
They measure the strength of the slams based on the ranking of the winners' opponents. Which is a pretty fair measurement.
Except it's got one notable flaw. A dominant player who is ranked #1 will always be disadvantaged. And similarly, a player who isn't ranked #1 nearly as much but is virtually unstoppbable on one particular surface, let's say clay for example, will almost always be advantaged in this ranking methodology because they will encounter the #1 player often when surface adjusted rankings don't exist..
 

mwym

Rookie
1) Nadal 19.78
2) Federer 19.43
3) Djokovic 18.10
If Djokovic wins USO19, Big 3 will be within 0.6-0.8 difference. That pretty much confirms what we already know, and explains the media (both real and social) reaction to Djokovic WC19 win.

Except it's got one notable flaw. A dominant player who is ranked #1 will always be disadvantaged. And similarly, a player who isn't ranked #1 nearly as much but is virtually unstoppbable on one particular surface, let's say clay for example, will almost always be advantaged in this ranking methodology because they will encounter the #1 player often when surface adjusted rankings don't exist..
Nadal has 18->19.78 : + 1.78
Djokovic has 16->18.10 : + 2.10

It seems that surface domination does not result in obvious advantage. Surely, the reason for 2.10 vs 1.78 might be that Djokovic have won more Slams than Nadal while NOT being #1 (while being #2 or #3), but I hope @Lew II might help us with comparison that exact stat for both.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Except it's got one notable flaw. A dominant player who is ranked #1 will always be disadvantaged. And similarly, a player who isn't ranked #1 nearly as much but is virtually unstoppbable on one particular surface, let's say clay for example, will almost always be advantaged in this ranking methodology because they will encounter the #1 player often when surface adjusted rankings don't exist..
If Djokovic wins USO19, Big 3 will be within 0.6-0.8 difference. That pretty much confirms what we already know, and explains the media (both real and social) reaction to Djokovic WC19 win.



Nadal has 18->19.78 : + 1.78
Djokovic has 16->18.10 : + 2.10

It seems that surface domination does not result in obvious advantage. Surely, the reason for 2.10 vs 1.78 might be that Djokovic have won more Slams than Nadal while NOT being #1 (while being #2 or #3), but I hope @Lew II might help us with comparison that exact stat for both.
Go to UTS and check how this was calculated.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
A dominant player who is ranked #1 will always be disadvantaged.
Why? A dominant player is not when he beat lower ranked players but when he beat top players. And even a dominant player may have the luck to play vs lower ranked players than another top players.
And similarly, a player who isn't ranked #1 nearly as much but is virtually unstoppbable on one particular surface, let's say clay for example, will almost always be advantaged in this ranking methodology because they will encounter the #1 player often when surface adjusted rankings don't exist..
No players will be on the top for several years if they are good on only one surface. You mean Nadal in your expression. But Nadal showed through the years that he has good game on all surfaces. Nadal has 28 non-clay titles, incl. 6 slams, 9 Masters, 1 Olympics.

No need of surface adjusted rankings when the players play on every surface, on every slam, Masters etc. The only important here is the ranking of the opponents the player plays against through his career. Depending on the opponents' ranking the wins are qualified easier or more complex.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Big Titles adjusted by difficulty:

Djokovic 60.93
Nadal 58.42
Federer 55.16
McEnroe 34.49
Lendl 34.36
Sampras 30.14
Borg 29.66
Connors 27.22
Agassi 25.5
Murray 23.45
Becker 23.37
Laver 17.02
Wilander 16.06
Edberg 15.43
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
2019 USO is last with 0.799
Totally disagree with their calculations. The fact that all top players except Nadal and Medevedev failed in the early rounds means nothing. Important should be how many players participated from top 10, top 20 ..... Only Delpo was missing from top 10 and Anderson from top 20.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Totally disagree with their calculations. The fact that all top players except Nadal and Medevedev failed in the early rounds means nothing. Important should be how many players participated from top 10, top 20 ..... Only Delpo was missing from top 10 and Anderson from top 20.
Participation matters more for slam difficulty than the path actually taken?
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Adjust how good nadal is on clay and what a poor clay era it is with no specialists and his adjusted slam drops to 7
NONSENSE! Players should be judged by the competition in the era they played. Also, I think peak Federer or Novak would do well in the pre Fed-Nadal clay court era, never mid Nadal
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Both should matter with the respective weights. It's different when top players are missing and top players fail in some rounds.
Sure, if top players are knocked out by high quality play that's better then them not competing. But I don't think much credit should be given for players being in the draw if they lost several rounds before playing the eventual champ. Form/level of play is more important for me, I missed much of the final but it seems like Medvedev redeemed Nadal's draw somewhat.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
NONSENSE! Players should be judged by the competition in the era they played. Also, I think peak Federer or Novak would do well in the pre Fed-Nadal clay court era, never mid Nadal
I think that Rafa proved to anybody that he is an all surface player.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Its not about age, but level of play. It makes no sense that Rafa doesnt count (according to some) as an ATG 2005-2007. As an example, Rafa played better on HC in 2005 than Federer did in 2013.
2013 was probably Roger's worst years after 04, as I believe he had back problems that year. Nadal did not peak, on non clay surfaces till about 08
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Big Titles adjusted by difficulty:

Djokovic 60.93
Nadal 58.42
Federer 55.16
McEnroe 34.49
Lendl 34.36
Sampras 30.14
Borg 29.66
Connors 27.22
Agassi 25.5
Murray 23.45
Becker 23.37
Laver 17.02
Wilander 16.06
Edberg 15.43
All this speculation/theory is nonsense. Fact IS:
Roger- 20 slams
Nadal- 19 Roger +1
Roger- 28 Masters
Nadal- 35 Masters Nadal +7
YEC- Roger- 5, Nadal- 0 Roger +5
OG- Rafa-1, Roger- 0 - Rafa +1
Overall- Roger +6
Rafa +8
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Sure, if top players are knocked out by high quality play that's better then them not competing. But I don't think much credit should be given for players being in the draw if they lost several rounds before playing the eventual champ. Form/level of play is more important for me, I missed much of the final but it seems like Medvedev redeemed Nadal's draw somewhat.
In this tournament most of the top players lost not because of the extraordinary game of their opponents but merely they didn't show their game. I can't know the reasons but this was the case with Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsi, Nishi, Agut. Adding to this the injury of Djok and the surprising loss of Fed the draw became rough. Sure, level of play is important. But who can expect that so many top players would be out? That's too too strange.
I don't think Medvedev redeemed Nadal's draw. The only tough player Medvedev beat and who had some chances vs Nadal was Wawrinka. Dimitrov made a strong match vs Fed but had no weapons vs Medvedev. With his form Medvedev seemed to be the best from the first half of the draw. Of course nobody knows what could have happened in a match Medved - Fed.
 
Top