Open Era Win % vs Rival ATGs ........ What does this tell you ?

[Razer]

Head to Head against ATGs faced in their career [Vs Rivals who played at least 6 GS Finals in the Open Era]

01. Borg vs - [Connors (15-8), Mcenroe (7-7), Lendl (6-2), Wilander (1-0), Vilas (17-5), Laver (6-2), Newcombe (2-3), Rosewall (1-0)] .... Total 55-27 ..... Win% = 67.07 % (8 players)

02. Sampras vs - [ Agassi (20-14), Becker (12-7), Courier (16-4), Edberg (8-6), Lendl (5-3), Mcenroe (3-0), Wilander (2-1), Connors (2-0), Federer (0-1)] .... Total 68 - 36 .... Win% = 65.4% (9 players)

03. Becker vs -[ Sampras (7-12), Agassi (4-10), Edberg (25-10), Lendl (10-11), Mcenroe (8-2), Wilander (7-3), Connors (6-0), Courier (6-1), Vilas (1-0)] ... Total 74-49 ......Win% 60.16% (9 players)

04. Lendl vs - [Mcenroe (21-15), Connors (22-13), Edberg (13-14), Wilander (15-7), Becker (11-10), Borg (2-6), Agassi (6-2), Sampras (3-5), Courier (4-0), Vilas (10-5)] ...Total 107-77 ...... win% = 58.15% (10 players)

05. Nadal vs - [Djokovic (29-30), Federer (24-16), Agassi (2-0), Murray (17-7)] Total 72-53 ... win% = 57.6% (4 players)

06. Djokovic vs - [Nadal (30-29), Federer (27-23), Murray (25-11)] .... Total 82-63 .....Win% = 56.55% (3 players)

07. Federer vs - [Djokovic (23-27), Nadal (16-24), Agassi (8-3), Sampras (1-0), Murray (14-11)] ....Total 62-65 ......Win% = 48.81% (5 players)

08. Agassi vs -[Sampras (14-20), Becker (10-4), Federer (3-8), Nadal (0-2), Edberg (6-3), Lendl (2-6), Wilander (5-2), Mcenroe (2-2), Connors (2-0), Courier (5-7)]...Total 49-54 ...... Win% 47.57% (10 players)

09. Mcenroe vs - [Connors (20-14), Lendl (15-21), Borg (7-7), Edberg (7-6), Wilander (7-6), Becker (2-8), Sampras (0-3), Agassi (2-2), Courier (1-2), Vilas (6-6), newcombe (1-)] ... Total 68-76 .... win% = 47.22% (11 players)

10. Wilander vs - [Lendl (7-15), Edberg (11-9), Mcenroe (6-7), Becker (3-7), Agassi (2-5), Connors (5-0), Sampras (1-2), Borg (0-1), Vilas (7-1)] ... Total 42-47 .... Win% = 47.19% (9 players)

11. Edberg vs - [Becker (10-25), Lendl (14-13), Wilander (9-11), Sampras (6-8), Mcenroe (6-7), Connors (6-6), Agassi (3-6), Courier (4-6)]... Total 58-82 ..... Win% = 41.42% (8 players)

12. Connors vs - [Mcenroe (14-20), Lendl (13-22), Borg (8-15), Edberg (6-6), Becker (0-6), Wilander (0-5), Sampras (0-2), Agassi (0-2), Courier (0-3), Vilas (5-4), Laver (3-0), Newcombe (4-2), Rosewall (7-1)] ... Total 60-88 .... Win% = 40.54% (13 players)

13. Murray vs - [Federer (11-14), Nadal (7-17), Djokovic (11-25)] ... Total 29-56 Win&= 34.12% (3 players)


Failed to make cutoff of 80 matches

Courier vs - [Sampras (4-16), Becker (1-6), Agassi (7-5), Lendl (0-4), Mcenroe (2-1), Edberg (6-4), Connors (3-0)] ... Total 23-36 ... 38.98% (7 players)

 

[nolefam_2024]

Very nice stat but missing ton of context. Nadal is behind both Nole and fed on grass and hard courts. He is clay GOAT.

 

[Razer]

Very nice stat but missing ton of context. Nadal is behind both Nole and fed on grass and hard courts. He is clay GOAT.

Yeah, Nadal did sneak up ahead of almost everyone in H2H due to Clay. Stats can at times be wicked.

However H2H is H2H, raw numbers of how many matches you played vs someone, it has to be accepted even with the skew.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Yeah, Nadal did sneak up ahead of almost everyone in H2H due to Clay. Stats can at times be wicked.

However H2H is H2H, raw numbers of how many matches you played vs someone, it has to be accepted even with the skew.

The skew is just sooo large. It can't be ignored.

 

[GoatNo1]

it tells me that there is a lot of cherry picking going on with a very subjective, not to say ulterior motive, selection of ATG players. where raz is included but not muzza or wawa. just for exempel...

 

[NeutralFan]

BO3 % shouldn't be counted since nobody cares about the masters.

 

[NeutralFan]

Yeah, Nadal did sneak up ahead of almost everyone in H2H due to Clay. Stats can at times be wicked.

However H2H is H2H, raw numbers of how many matches you played vs someone, it has to be accepted even with the skew.

During his peak Nadal was even on Wimbledon, ahead at USO and lost zero match at FO against Djokovic and lost only one match against Novak at AO that went to 5 . That's some clutch stuff against somebody who gave him most trouble. As far as Roger is concerned he totally dominated him for a decade and it wasn't just clay. Peak /prime Nadal is the biggest match player and it's not even close.

 

[GoatNo1]

During his peak Nadal was even on Wimbledon, ahead at USO and lost zero match at FO against Djokovic and lost only one match against Novak at AO that went to 5 . That's some clutch stuff against somebody who gave him most trouble. As far as Roger is concerned he totally dominated him for a decade and it wasn't just clay. Peak /prime Nadal is the biggest match player and it's not even close.

don't forget that an absolute peak rafa lost 7 big finals in a row vs nole on all 3 surfaces!

Spoiler

2012	Australian Open Australia	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	57 64 62 675 75
2011	US Open NY, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	62 64 673 61
2011	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Novak Djokovic	64 61 16 63
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Rome Italy	Outdoor Clay	F	Novak Djokovic	64 64
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Madrid Spain	Outdoor Clay	F	Novak Djokovic	75 64
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	46 63 764
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Indian Wells CA, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	46 63 62

if not for nole, 2011 would be rafa's absolute best season!

 

[NeutralFan]

don't forget that an absolute peak rafa lost 7 big finals in a row vs nole on all 3 surfaces!

Spoiler

2012	Australian Open Australia	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	57 64 62 675 75
2011	US Open NY, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	62 64 673 61
2011	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Novak Djokovic	64 61 16 63
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Rome Italy	Outdoor Clay	F	Novak Djokovic	64 64
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Madrid Spain	Outdoor Clay	F	Novak Djokovic	75 64
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	46 63 764
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Indian Wells CA, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	46 63 62

if not for nole, 2011 would be rafa's absolute best season!

Yeah , peak is only one year ? Don't forget peak Djokovic lost to off prime Fed on grass and clay lol
.also don't forget Peak Djokovic could win only 7 slams in toughest era 2008-2013 and then won rest in vulture era.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

edberg+becker combined vs pete at slams.. 0-5, never played a five-setter..
lets take 2 matches from edberg from ao and uso + two matches from becker at wimby.. speaking about games lost/won vs pete.. 85-62=72.9%..
and now taking 4 matches from sir andy vs djoko at slams (3 ao + 1 uso, let alone not including uso12 five-setter + wimby13, for example).. 98-71=72.45%.. looks like sir andy sitting in the same tier with those two guys

 

[Razer]

During his peak Nadal was even on Wimbledon, ahead at USO and lost zero match at FO against Djokovic and lost only one match against Novak at AO that went to 5 . That's some clutch stuff against somebody who gave him most trouble. As far as Roger is concerned he totally dominated him for a decade and it wasn't just clay. Peak /prime Nadal is the biggest match player and it's not even close.

The Djokovic which went 5 sets with Nadal was a Djokovic not in form and one which had gone 4.5 hours with Murray and yet Djokovic won, had it been peak version of Djokovic then Nadal would have been blown away at the AO. Wimbledon too I don't think Peak Nadal will win vs Peak Nole. At USO it is 50-50, on a good windy day in favor of Nadal, at Clay of course Nadal is invincible. Djokovic is 1 guy whose game is designed to nullify all of Nadal's powers outside Clay. Reg Federer I agree, there was a lot of struggle from Federer in his entire prime years, quite shameful for Federer given all his dominance at his peak. Nadal is a bigger big match player than Federer but Djokovic is probably even bigger big match player than Nadal or just as good.

 

[Razer]

edberg+becker combined vs pete at slams.. 0-5, never played a five-setter..
lets take 2 matches from edberg from ao and uso + two matches from becker at wimby.. speaking about games lost/won vs pete.. 85-62=72.9%..
and now taking 4 matches from sir andy vs djoko at slams (let alone not including uso12 five-setter + wimby13, for example).. 98-71=72.45%.. looks like sir andy sitting in the same tier with those two guys

Murray is overrated to the core. He is 6 years younger than Federer and got kicked everyday by Roger. On the other hand Becker was surrounded by ATGs who were from +7 to -4 age range to him, his 58% vs them is great %. Murray is 29-56 vs Big 3, thats 34%.... horrible.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Murray is overrated to the core. He is 6 years younger than Federer and got kicked everyday by Roger. On the other hand Becker was surrounded by ATGs who were from +7 to -4 age range to him, his 58% vs them is great %. Murray is 29-56 vs Big 3, thats 34%.... horrible.

did becker play many years vs big 3, no

 

[NatF]

Alcaraz shouldn't count yet.

 

[GoatNo1]

Yeah , peak is only one year ? Don't forget peak Djokovic lost to off prime Fed on grass and clay lol
.also don't forget Peak Djokovic could won only 7 slams in toughest era 2008-2013 and then won rest in vulture era.

Toughest era was 2011-2016. Called golden era.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Head to Head against ATGs faced in their career (Minimum 50 Matches Played Overall)

01. Sampras vs - [ Agassi (20-14), Becker (12-7), Edberg (8-6), Lendl (5-3), Mcenroe (3-0), Wilander (2-1), Connors (2-0), Federer (0-1)] ....Total 52-32....Win% = 61.9%
02. Becker vs -[ Sampras (7-12), Agassi (4-10), Edberg (25-10), Lendl (10-11), Mcenroe (8-2), Wilander (7-3), Connors (6-0)] ... Total 67-48 ......Win% = 58.2%
03. Lendl vs - [Mcenroe (21-15), Connors (22-13), Edberg (13-14), Wilander (15-7), Becker (11-10), Borg (2-6), Agassi (6-2), Sampras (3-5)] ...Total 93-72.....Win% = 56.36%
04. Nadal vs - [Djokovic (29-30), Federer (24-16), Agassi (2-0), Alcaraz (2-1)].... Total 57-47....Win% = 54.8%
05. Djokovic vs - [Nadal (30-29), Federer (27-23), Alcaraz (2-2)] .... Total 59-54 .....Win% = 52.22%
06. Agassi vs -[Sampras (14-20), Becker (10-4), Federer (3-8), Nadal (0-2), Edberg (6-3), Lendl (2-6), Wilander (5-2), Mcenroe (2-2), Connors (2-0)]...Total 44-47 ...Win% = 48.35%
07. Mcenroe vs - [Connors (20-14), Lendl (15-21), Borg (7-7), Edberg (7-6), Wilander (7-6), Becker (2-8), Sampras (0-3), Agassi (2-2)] ... Total 60-67 .....Win% = 47.2%
08. Federer vs - [Djokovic (23-27), Nadal (16-24), Agassi (8-3), Sampras (1-0)] ....Total 48-54 ......Win% = 47.05%_
09. Wilander vs - [Lendl (7-15), Edberg (11-9), Mcenroe (6-7), Becker (3-7), Agassi (2-5), Connors (5-0), Sampras (1-2), Borg (0-1)] ... Total 35-46 .....Win% = 43.2%
10. Edberg vs - [Becker (10-25), Lendl (14-13), Wilander (9-11), Sampras (6-8), Mcenroe (6-7), Connors (6-6), Agassi (3-6)]... Total 54-76 ....... Win% = 41.5%
11. Connors vs - [Mcenroe (14-20), Lendl (13-22), Borg (8-15), Edberg (6-6), Becker (0-6), Wilander (0-5), Sampras (0-2), Agassi (0-2)] ... Total 41-78 ...... Win% = 34.45%


Failed to make Cutoff of 50 matches

01.Borg vs - [Connors (15-8), Mcenroe (7-7), Lendl (6-2), Wilander (1-0)] .... Total 29-17 .... Win% = 63%
02. Alcaraz vs - [Djokovic (2-2), Nadal (1-2)] ... Total 3-4 ..... Win% = 42.85%

LOL, that Fed and Connors were the only two who didn't get much chance to beat up on older players to make their numbers?

 

[davced1]

edberg+becker combined vs pete at slams.. 0-5, never played a five-setter..
lets take 2 matches from edberg from ao and uso + two matches from becker at wimby.. speaking about games lost/won vs pete.. 85-62=72.9%..
and now taking 4 matches from sir andy vs djoko at slams (3 ao + 1 uso, let alone not including uso12 five-setter + wimby13, for example).. 98-71=72.45%.. looks like sir andy sitting in the same tier with those two guys

Edberg won both slam matches with Sampras.

 

[The_Order]

Look at the desperate Nadal haters... "oh but clay... but clay"

Fail to realise that clay is one of the main surfaces...

AO09: def #2 Federer
RG12: def #1 Djokovic
WIM08: def #1 Federer
US13: def #1 Djokovic

Djok nowhere near wins against opponents of that level at the 4 majors.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Edberg won both slam matches with Sampras.

yea indeed my bad

 

[dr325i]

Head to Head against ATGs faced in their career (Minimum 50 Matches Played Overall)

01. Sampras vs - [ Agassi (20-14), Becker (12-7), Edberg (8-6), Lendl (5-3), Mcenroe (3-0), Wilander (2-1), Connors (2-0), Federer (0-1)] ....Total 52-32....Win% = 61.9%
02. Becker vs -[ Sampras (7-12), Agassi (4-10), Edberg (25-10), Lendl (10-11), Mcenroe (8-2), Wilander (7-3), Connors (6-0)] ... Total 67-48 ......Win% = 58.2%
03. Lendl vs - [Mcenroe (21-15), Connors (22-13), Edberg (13-14), Wilander (15-7), Becker (11-10), Borg (2-6), Agassi (6-2), Sampras (3-5)] ...Total 93-72.....Win% = 56.36%
04. Nadal vs - [Djokovic (29-30), Federer (24-16), Agassi (2-0), Alcaraz (2-1)].... Total 57-47....Win% = 54.8%
05. Djokovic vs - [Nadal (30-29), Federer (27-23), Alcaraz (2-2)] .... Total 59-54 .....Win% = 52.22%
06. Agassi vs -[Sampras (14-20), Becker (10-4), Federer (3-8), Nadal (0-2), Edberg (6-3), Lendl (2-6), Wilander (5-2), Mcenroe (2-2), Connors (2-0)]...Total 44-47 ...Win% = 48.35%
07. Mcenroe vs - [Connors (20-14), Lendl (15-21), Borg (7-7), Edberg (7-6), Wilander (7-6), Becker (2-8), Sampras (0-3), Agassi (2-2)] ... Total 60-67 .....Win% = 47.2%
08. Federer vs - [Djokovic (23-27), Nadal (16-24), Agassi (8-3), Sampras (1-0)] ....Total 48-54 ......Win% = 47.05%_
09. Wilander vs - [Lendl (7-15), Edberg (11-9), Mcenroe (6-7), Becker (3-7), Agassi (2-5), Connors (5-0), Sampras (1-2), Borg (0-1)] ... Total 35-46 .....Win% = 43.2%
10. Edberg vs - [Becker (10-25), Lendl (14-13), Wilander (9-11), Sampras (6-8), Mcenroe (6-7), Connors (6-6), Agassi (3-6)]... Total 54-76 ....... Win% = 41.5%
11. Connors vs - [Mcenroe (14-20), Lendl (13-22), Borg (8-15), Edberg (6-6), Becker (0-6), Wilander (0-5), Sampras (0-2), Agassi (0-2)] ... Total 41-78 ...... Win% = 34.45%


Failed to make Cutoff of 50 matches

01.Borg vs - [Connors (15-8), Mcenroe (7-7), Lendl (6-2), Wilander (1-0)] .... Total 29-17 .... Win% = 63%
02. Alcaraz vs - [Djokovic (2-2), Nadal (1-2)] ... Total 3-4 ..... Win% = 42.85%

1) Alcaraz is not an ATG (not at this moment at least)
2) Novak vs 3 opponents others vs many more is skewed analysis
3) 20-yo Nadal vs 36yo Agassi LOL...is the matchup that overlapped over two eras for example that could only go one way...

Tells me nothing the way it is shown. Needs to be looked at deeper.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Great compilation.

This seems to me more like a chastisement of the entire 2000s until present. Federer only overlaps with 4 ATGs, Nadal 3, and Djokovic 2. This is down from ATGs meeting 7-8 others in the 90s and 80s. Placing Alcaraz here seems premature.

Golden era overblown?

 

[No_Kwan_Do]

Why is Alcaraz in there? He's not an ATG yet.

 

[Zoid]

A theory:

Most of the time the younger gen gets an advantage in H2H over the older gen for two reasons:

1) They have developed a technique and/or style that has advanced with the technology. Swings that could take advantage of wide-body racquets, and then later, poly strings for example. Or they find fitness gains or better movement technique from the baseline.

- Mcenroe v Agassi in strokes (11 yrs difference).
- Lendl and Courier took advantage of fitness off-court.
- The difference in movement between Hewitt and Djokovic for eg. (5-6 yrs difference).

2) The younger gen has less pressure when they face an ATG.

But there's been no tech advancement since the polyester string revolution circa mid/late 90s. But at the same time, there has been changes at grassroots levels. Lighter racquets and poly strings from the beginning. It has regressed the technique of younger pros. So the Big-3 era benefitted from better movement and technique over the prior generation and then benefitted from a weaker technique of the subsequent generations.

Borg v Connors is an example of a guy figuring out, or pre-dating, modern forehand technique, against old school technique. He had a technique advantage in that matchup. Ditto for Borg v Mac. That's tied at 7-7 despite all matches on quick hard or grass.

Once you start comparing ATG's, most of the difference lies in the favourableness of conditions, surfaces of the matchup etc., not the inherent qualities of the players, in my opinion.

Everyone on that list has a special quality to them.

 

[Razer]

1) Alcaraz is not an ATG (not at this moment at least)
2) Novak vs 3 opponents others vs many more is skewed analysis
3) 20-yo Nadal vs 36yo Agassi LOL...is the matchup that overlapped over two eras for example that could only go one way...

Tells me nothing the way it is shown. Needs to be looked at deeper.

Great compilation.

This seems to me more like a chastisement of the entire 2000s until present. Federer only overlaps with 4 ATGs, Nadal 3, and Djokovic 2. This is down from ATGs meeting 7-8 others in the 90s and 80s. Placing Alcaraz here seems premature.

Golden era overblown?

Big 3 won everything everywhere, so instead of 7 or 8 ATGs over 15-20 years career then are just among themselves. . This also raises the status of guys like Murray and Stan whose fans claim they are ATGs with 5-6 slams worth.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Big 3 won everything everywhere, so instead of 7 or 8 ATGs over 15-20 years career then are just among themselves. . This also raises the status of guys like Murray and Stan whose fans claim they are ATGs with 5-6 slams worth.

Agree on Murray, not sure about Stan. Stan won 3 of the 4 slam finals he made. He was stopped many other times in SFs by big 3 but he’s so inconsistent that I don’t think we can just give it to him. He has half the titles of Roddick and Hewitt despite playing much longer. Even if you add to Murray to the mix, it’s still much less ATGs than other eras.

It’s an interesting consideration. On the one hand we can say that the the big 3 are so good that they prevented everyone else in their era from becoming ATGs. But does the 10 slam gap between Djokovic and Sampras represent a gap in their ability? Is Djokovic 3x the player Lendl is because he has 3x the slams? At some point, we have to question whether the homogezation and lack of competition helped not just Djokovic, but all big 3 in addition to them being GOAT level players.

One last thing - with all big 3 having extended careers late into their 30’s it should make overlapping with other ATGs more likely relative to other eras, but this didn’t happen. Frankly, the 10 year gap between Sampras and Federer, and the 16 year gap between Djokovic and Alcaraz (assuming he goes on to become an ATG) looks to be the longest, and second longest in history. Every other ATG before big 3 in your list ended up overlapping with each other from Sampras to Connors despite shorter careers because they all played within a 20 year time span. Today, we’d be lucky if 3 ATGs were active at the same time.

 

[Azure]

The Djokovic which went 5 sets with Nadal was a Djokovic not in form and one which had gone 4.5 hours with Murray and yet Djokovic won, had it been peak version of Djokovic then Nadal would have been blown away at the AO. Wimbledon too I don't think Peak Nadal will win vs Peak Nole. At USO it is 50-50, on a good windy day in favor of Nadal, at Clay of course Nadal is invincible. Djokovic is 1 guy whose game is designed to nullify all of Nadal's powers outside Clay. Reg Federer I agree, there was a lot of struggle from Federer in his entire prime years, quite shameful for Federer given all his dominance at his peak. Nadal is a bigger big match player than Federer but Djokovic is probably even bigger big match player than Nadal or just as good.

Highly debatable.

 

[Hitman]

I'm just going to say this, Sampras indeed was the man.

 

[TMF]

Highly debatable.

Post 2010 Nadal, he's not as good as peak Nole at Wimbledon.

Nadal 2006-2008 would beat any version of Djokovic at Wimbledon

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Post 2010 Nadal, he's not as good as peak Nole at Wimbledon.

Nadal 2006-2008 would beat any version of Djokovic at Wimbledon

of course especially 06 version

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Post 2010 Nadal, he's not as good as peak Nole at Wimbledon.

Nadal 2006-2008 would beat any version of Djokovic at Wimbledon

2006 Nadal doesn't beat 2015 Djokovic at all.


2007 is one of Nadal's best versions ever at Wimbledon and he was struggling with a kid Djokovic before the injury.

 

[Hitman]

Why is Alcaraz in there? He's not an ATG yet.

He's got 10 year ending number ones locked in....

 

[Azure]

Post 2010 Nadal, he's not as good as peak Nole at Wimbledon.

Nadal 2006-2008 would beat any version of Djokovic at Wimbledon

Definitely not 2006 Rafa. I think 2007, 2008 would definitely match well against the best of Novak. It will be hardfought and Nadal did beat him in that epic Queen’s match too in 2008

 

[Razer]

Highly debatable.

7>2
The man on 2 has never taken 3 sets off the man on 7
2011 Nole will beat 2008 Rafael too, 2015 Nole will also do it.

If I wanted Nole to be beaten then I would bring some younger versions of Roger, certainly not Rafa. Tennis is about matchups, Rafa might look formidable against Roger but not against the Djoker.

 

[Azure]

7>2
The man on 2 has never taken 3 sets off the man on 7
2011 Nole will beat 2008 Rafael too, 2015 Nole will also do it.

If I wanted Nole to be beaten then I would bring some younger versions of Roger, certainly not Rafa. Tennis is about matchups, Rafa might look formidable against Roger but not against the Djoker.

You said peak. I am not talking about the more accomplished. IMO Federer is a greater grasscourter than Djokovic and Rafa troubled the best of Federer. How do you reckon it would work with peak rafa against peak djoker? In my view it would be very, very close and the result is not so clear cut.

 

[Razer]

You said peak. I am not talking about the more accomplished. IMO Federer is a greater grasscourter than Djokovic and Rafa troubled the best of Federer. How do you reckon it would work with peak rafa against peak djoker? In my view it would be very, very close and the result is not so clear cut.

Many people feel 2011 Nadal was not much different from 2010 Nadal minus his serving and we saw what Novak did to 2011 Nadal, what the guarantee that 2008 Nadal or 2010 Nadal will also not lose like that ?

 

[Azure]

Many people feel 2011 Nadal was not much different from 2010 Nadal minus his serving and we saw what Novak did to 2011 Nadal, what the guarantee that 2008 Nadal or 2010 Nadal will also not lose like that ?

I say its debatable. You seem cocksure.

 

[Razer]

Agree on Murray, not sure about Stan. Stan won 3 of the 4 slam finals he made. He was stopped many other times in SFs by big 3 but he’s so inconsistent that I don’t think we can just give it to him. He has half the titles of Roddick and Hewitt despite playing much longer. Even if you add to Murray to the mix, it’s still much less ATGs than other eras.

It’s an interesting consideration. On the one hand we can say that the the big 3 are so good that they prevented everyone else in their era from becoming ATGs. But does the 10 slam gap between Djokovic and Sampras represent a gap in their ability? Is Djokovic 3x the player Lendl is because he has 3x the slams? At some point, we have to question whether the homogezation and lack of competition helped not just Djokovic, but all big 3 in addition to them being GOAT level players.

One last thing - with all big 3 having extended careers late into their 30’s it should make overlapping with other ATGs more likely relative to other eras, but this didn’t happen. Frankly, the 10 year gap between Sampras and Federer, and the 16 year gap between Djokovic and Alcaraz (assuming he goes on to become an ATG) looks to be the longest, and second longest in history. Every other ATG before big 3 in your list ended up overlapping with each other from Sampras to Connors despite shorter careers because they all played within a 20 year time span. Today, we’d be lucky if 3 ATGs were active at the same time.

Djokovic is definetly not 1.5 times Sampras and 3 times Lendl, because the past players did not have Great Age Shift and modern medicines to prolong their careers. Plus more importantly Djokovic's records were constructed against Big 3, Murray, Stan, sameway Roger's were constructed against fellow Big 3 members, Roddick, Hewitt, Murray, Stan. .... so it is not Sampras/Becker/Lendl's fault, they had no hand in this otherwise who knows they could have done something about it ?

Unlike that Murray was hands on in creating Big'3 records, so yeah Novak is 8 times better than Murray and even Federer/Nadal are 7-8 times better.

 

[SonnyT]

Such a differentiation doesn't mean a thing. Who says Connors and Becker were competitors? No one, and yet they were shown to be!

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

It gets a little subjective about what are considered " ATG rivals" but if we go simply by record against GS champions then players as Borg, Sampras, and Nadal 73% (Bo5 vs GS Champs) will rate high.

 

[Pheasant]

Lendl’s 93 wins against those legends is absolutely nuts. That is a massive sample size. That guy was absolutely dominant.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Nice stats. Not surprised at all that Becker is so good here. His record against top players was always great. If we look at slams though he is quite poor against the same players:
Sampras 0-3, Agassi 1-4, McEnroe 0-1, Lendl 5-1, Wilander 0-3, Edberg 1-3, Connors 1-0.
Overall: 8-15, 35%.

Would be interesting to go one step down and look at the same stat against HoFs or slam winners. Wouldn’t be surprised if Becker looks even better here. Off the top of my head we can add:

Chang 5-1
Courier 6-1
Stich 8-4
Goran 10-9
Rafter 2-1
Hewitt 1-0
Noah 4-2
Korda 6-0

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Failed to make Cutoff of 50 matches

01.Borg vs - [Connors (15-8), Mcenroe (7-7), Lendl (6-2), Wilander (1-0)] .... Total 29-17 .... Win% = 63%
02. Alcaraz vs - [Djokovic (2-2), Nadal (1-2)] ... Total 3-4 ..... Win% = 42.85%

Borg vs Laver 6-2, Newcombe 2-3. Win%(total) = 64%.
If we count Alcaraz for Nadal we should definitely count those two for Borg which makes it above 50.
My man ending up No.1 again.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

The skew is just sooo large. It can't be ignored.

Of course the stats are a little misleading but why to pick again in Nadal and clay? The stat values H2H against borderline ATGs (maybe even only played at an old age) the same as H2H against GOAT candidates. Novak’s close winning H2Hs against Fedal who he played almost his whole career and many mstcbes at peak level don’t really help him in this stat as it equates his overall % (take the Nadal H2H out and he actually improves). At the same time Becker beating up old Mac and Connors 8-2 and 6-0 boosts his %.

Nevertheless interesting stats.

 

[Razer]

Borg vs Laver 6-2, Newcombe 2-3. Win%(total) = 64%.
If we count Alcaraz for Nadal we should definitely count those two for Borg which makes it above 50.
My man ending up No.1 again.

Borg does not deserve any consideration, he ran away without facing any youngsters. His H2H, Win%, 5th Set% everything would have gone down had he faced Mac-Lendl-Wilander-Becker-Edberg in the 1980s but he did not. So the cut off should actually be 75-80 matches played

As I've posted before, Borg's rivals were all older to him and this benefitted him since he ran away later on before facing youngsters

Borg's top 40 rivals with whom he played most matches :

- Connors 23 matches played [ 4 years older to Borg]
- Vilas 22 matches played [4 years older to Borg]
- Nastase 18 matches played [10 years older to Borg]
- Gerulatis 18 matches played [2 years older to Borg]
- Ashe 17 matches played [13 years older to Borg]
- Orantes 16 matches played [7 years older to Borg]
- Tanner 16 matches played [5 years older to Borg]
- Panatta 16 matches played [6 years older to Borg]
- Solomon 15 matches played [4 years older to Borg]
- Mcenroe 14 matches played [3 years young to Borg]
- Ramirez 14 matches played [3 years older to Borg]
- Dibbs 14 matches played [5 years older to Borg]
- Gottfried 12 matches played [4 years older to Borg]
- Higueras 12 matches played [3 years older to Borg]
- Okker 11 matches played [12 years older to Borg]
- Barazutti 10 matches played [3 years older to Borg]
- Lendl 8 matches played [4 years younger to Borg]
- Laver 8 matches played [18 years older to Borg]
- Mayer 8 matches played [1 month older to Borg]
- Kodes 8 matches played [10 years older to Borg]
- Parun 7 matches played [9 years older to Borg]
- Smith 7 matches played [10 years older to Borg]
- Riessen 7 matches played [15 years older to Borg]
- Stockton 7 matches played [5 years older to Borg]
- Pecci - 7 matches played [1 years older to Borg]
- Fillol - 7 matches played [10 years older to Borg]
- Zugarelli - 7 matches played [6 years older to Borg]
- Feling - 6 matches played [1 years older to Borg]
- Fibak - 6 matches played [4 years older to Borg]
- Taroczy - 6 matches played [2 years older to Borg]
- Cox - 6 matches played [13 years older to Borg]
- Amritraz - 6 matches played [3 years older to Borg]
- Moore - 6 matches played [10 years older to Borg]
- Pattinson - 6 matches played [7 years older to Borg]
- Lloyd - 6 matches played [2 years older to Borg]
- Newcombe - 5 matches played [12 years older to Borg]
- Noah - 5 matches played [4 years younger to Borg]
- Mcnamara - 5 matches played [1 years older to Borg]
- Alexander - 5 matches played [5 years older to Borg]
- Pecci - 5 matches played [1 years older to Borg]

Number of oldies in top 100 was down bigtime in 1980s, Borg probably would have got deep fried by the youngsters, so he ran away after losing a 100M race to 16 years older Pele and Gretzky

 

[Razer]

Nice stats. Not surprised at all that Becker is so good here. His record against top players was always great. If we look at slams though he is quite poor against the same players:
Sampras 0-3, Agassi 1-4, McEnroe 0-1, Lendl 5-1, Wilander 0-3, Edberg 1-3, Connors 1-0.
Overall: 8-15, 35%.

Would be interesting to go one step down and look at the same stat against HoFs or slam winners. Wouldn’t be surprised if Becker looks even better here. Off the top of my head we can add:

Chang 5-1
Courier 6-1
Stich 8-4
Goran 10-9
Rafter 2-1
Hewitt 1-0
Noah 4-2
Korda 6-0

If Becker lead those slams percent too then I guess he would have been GOAT in place of Sampras? Sad. I guess that era was too tough, Boris did not have the benefit of a vacuum anywhere in his career, it was probably too tight everyday.

 

[weakera]

don't forget that an absolute peak rafa lost 7 big finals in a row vs nole on all 3 surfaces!

Spoiler

2012	Australian Open Australia	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	57 64 62 675 75
2011	US Open NY, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	62 64 673 61
2011	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Novak Djokovic	64 61 16 63
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Rome Italy	Outdoor Clay	F	Novak Djokovic	64 64
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Madrid Spain	Outdoor Clay	F	Novak Djokovic	75 64
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	46 63 764
2011	ATP Masters 1000 Indian Wells CA, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Novak Djokovic	46 63 62

if not for nole, 2011 would be rafa's absolute best season!

...and then proceeded to lost 6 of his next 7 matches to Nadal


lol

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

If Becker lead those slams percent too then I guess he would have been GOAT in place of Sampras? Sad. I guess that era was too tough, Boris did not have the benefit of a vacuum anywhere in his career, it was probably too tight everyday.

Not necessarily. Thing is he was quite vulnerable against lesser players but really good against the big guns. For AO and USO:

Australian Open:
1984: Got straight setted by Ben Testerman (0 career titles highest ranking 22, ok have to say, that he was 16 here).
1985: Lost against Michiel Shapers (0 career titles highest ranking 25)
1986: -
1987: Lost against Wally Masur (3 career titles highest ranking 15)
1988: -
1989: Got straight setted by Jonas Svensson (5 career titles highest ranking 10)
1990: Got straight setted by Wilander whom he generally dominated
1991: Won
1992: Got straight setted by 32 year old Mcenroe
1993: Lost in first round against Qualifier Anders Järryd
1994: -
1995: Lost in the first round against Patrick McEnroe!!!! (1 career title highest ranking 28)
1996: Won
1997: Lost a five setter against Moya


US Open:
1985: Lost against Joakim Nyström ( 13 career titles highest ranking 7)
1986: Lost against Mecir in the semis whom he generally dominated
1987: Lost against Gilbert
1988: Got straight setted by Darren Cahill!!!! (Career titles 3, highest ranking 22)
1989: Won it
1990: Lost against Agassi
1991: Got straight setted by Haarhuis !!!( 1 career title, highest ranking 18)
1992: Lost against Lendl
1993: Lost against Magnus Larsson (7 career titles highest ranking 10)
1994: Lost against Richey Reneberg !!! (3 career tiltles highest rankin 20)

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Borg does not deserve any consideration, he ran away without facing any youngsters. His H2H, Win%, 5th Set% everything would have gone down had he faced Mac-Lendl-Wilander-Becker-Edberg in the 1980s but he did not. So the cut off should actually be 75-80 matches played

Won’t reply to that regurgitated myth that he ran away, we have gone over this multiple times already and @Martin J has given the right answer to that in one of the threads.
As for the cut-off, the 50 matches came from you, of course no matter how we slice it those stats will have flaws, fact is with the cut-off 50 matches Borg has the best winning percentage. My main point was that you have to include guys like Laver and Newcombe as ATG especially when there is Alcaraz in there.

Number of oldies in top 100 was down bigtime in 1980s, Borg probably would have got deep fried by the youngsters, so he ran away after losing a 100M race to 16 years older Pele and Gretzky

lol I was waiting for you to mention that stupid race. First of all, Gretzky is younger than Borg and Pele was said to run 11 sec something in his prime so not a good indicator (whatever such a stupid race has to do with tennis anyways).

 

[Razer]

Won’t reply to that regurgitated myth that he ran away, we have gone over this multiple times already and @Martin J has given the right answer to that in one of the threads.
As for the cut-off, the 50 matches came from you, of course no matter how we slice it those stats will have flaws, fact is with the cut-off 50 matches Borg has the best winning percentage. My main point was that you have to include guys like Laver and Newcombe as ATG especially when there is Alcaraz in there.

lol I was waiting for you to mention that stupid race. First of all, Gretzky is younger than Borg and Pele was said to run 11 sec something in his prime so not a good indicator (whatever such a stupid race has to do with tennis anyways).

Well I put 50 as cut off because Borg was below it, but honestly cut off should be 75 or 80. See the lowest guy in the list with least matches is Wilander with 81 and Sampras with 84. The cut off definetly should be 75 which is a reflection of a full career.

Borg retiring at 25 has created a big big big inflation, otherwise why else are all his rivals older to him ? That is so weird. It explains it.

The race part is not related to Tennis but he is known to be an athletic freak and the way he outmatched to Pete raises doubts on his athletic credentials. Borg basically was a master of stamina but not stop level speed I think so.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Pele was only 42 in that race, he was an active player at Cosmos New York until 1977, so I guess he was still in great form. That being said, Borg is indeed more known for his stamina than his max speed. He was a fast runner too though, there is no shame to lose to Gretzky and Pele.