Peak Federer vs Peak Djokovic vs Peak Sampras vs Peak Nadal ..... Who will end up as year end 1 ?

[Sunny014]

Peak Federer : W 2003 till AO 2010
Peak Djokovic : USO 2010 till USO 2016
Peak Sampras : USO1992 till USO1998
Peak Nadal : FO 2007 till FO 2014

Overall Slams Performance Stats :

Peak Federer : 16 Slams won and 6 Finals

W% = 93.75%, (177 matches played)
W% vs top 10 = 81.63%,
W% vs top 5 = 69.23%
5th set W% = 69.23%
Tie Break W% = 77.55%
W% after losing 1st set = 73%

Peak Djokovic : 11 Slams won and 8 Finals

W% = 91.41% (163 matches played)
W% vs top 10 = 75.51%
W% vs top 5 = 68.75%
5th set W% = 84.21%
Tie Break W% = 61.43%
W% after losing 1st set =58%

Peak Sampras : 10 Slams won and 2 Finals

W% = 89.21% (139 matches played)
W% vs top 10 = 73.91%
W% vs top 5 = 69.23%
5th set W% = 80%
Tie Break W% = 59.76%
W% after losing 1st set = 62.96%

Peak Nadal : 12 Slams won and 5 Finals

W% = 91.14% (158 matches played)
W% vs top 10 = 78.05%
W% vs top 5 = 80%
5th set W% = 75%
Tie Break W% = 71.62%
W% after losing 1st set = 60.71%

Distribution by Surface :

Hard Courts :

Federer : Win% = 94.57% Win% vs top 10 = 86.67% Win% vs top 5 = 76.92% Tie break% = 69.57%
Djokovic : Win% = 93.1% Win% vs top 10 = 82.76% Win% vs top 5 = 78.95% Tie break% = 63.89%
Sampras : Win% = 89.61% Win% vs top 10 = 69.23% Win% vs top 5 = 55.56% Tie break% = 55%
Nadal : Win% = 87.84% Win% vs top 10 = 58.82% Win% vs top 5 = 62.5% Tie break% = 75%

Grass :

Federer : Win% = 97.92% Win% vs top 10 = 90% Win% vs top 5 = 83.33% Tie Break % = 88.24%
Djokovic : Win% = 91.89% Win% vs top 10 = 75% Win% vs top 5 = 60% Tie Break % = 58.33%
Sampras : Win% = 97.5% Win% vs top 10 = 100% Win% vs top 5 = 100% Tie Break % = 68.75%
Nadal : Win% = 87.1% Win% vs top 10 = 75% Win% vs top 5 = 66% Tie Break % = 63.64%

Clay :

Federer : Win% = 86.49% Win% vs top 10 = 55.56% Win% vs top 5 = 42.86% Tie breaks = 77.78%
Djokovic : Win% = 87.18% Win% vs top 10 = 58.33% Win% vs top 5 = 50% Tie breaks = 60%
Sampras : Win% = 72.73% Win% vs top 10 = 33.33% Win% vs top 5 = 0% (never faced anyone, he was so horrible) Tie breaks = 50%
Nadal : Win% = 98.11% Win% vs top 10 = 100% Win% vs top 5 = 100% Tie breaks = 75%

ATP Tour Finals :

Federer : Win% = 81.25% Win% vs top 5 = 88.24%
Djokovic : Win% = 80.65% Win% vs top 5 = 67%
Sampras : Win% = 75% Win% vs top 5 = 76.47%
Nadal : Win% = 55% Win% vs top 5 = 44.44 %

Additionally in this hypothetical draw ..... you can also assume every top player in the last 30 years also to be born in the same year as this hypothetical draw....... So the grand slam draw of 128 will include Agassi, Courier, Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, Roddick, Safin, Murray, Hewitt, Stan etc etc as well ... all born in the same years as these 4 .....

 

[ForehandCross]

There was a similar thread before.

After long debate with myself and using all tennis knowledge I have gained obsessing like hell over this sport for last 4 years , I think my answer remains the same and it's undeniably true.

No one can prove it wrong.


The YE #1 would be @ForehandCross with 4 inches more in height. ( even 3 would do)

He wins CYGS, Has 30-0 winning record against big 3, wins every tournament except Belgrade 1 , Barcelona and Basel. ( he kindly withdraws from them so the big 3 can win at least something)

 

[pj80]

the mythical hypothetical Federer would go unbeaten...

 

[Antonio Puente]

Hypothetical Fed is amazing vs. elite competition. Real Fed?

Nadal would have the one guaranteed slam and likely clay season sweep. After that, everything is a tossup.

 

[tudwell]

Not sure about the question in the poll (and why only 1 year-end no. 1 when we're comparing spans of 6-7 years?), but what really stands out to me here is Fed's clutch-ness in tiebreaks. Those are some ridiculous numbers. Just goes to show how oversimplified the "Fed's mentally weak" narrative is. He was a monster in tight moments in his peak, and was often quite clutch in saving break points on his own serve. On the other hand, he's never been particularly clutch in fifth sets and has had quite a lot of big matches where his break point conversion rate really let him down, even in his best seasons. He's not who I would pick to play for my life in a fifth set, but he might very well be the guy I pick to play for my life in a tiebreak.

 

[TripleATeam]

Probably Federer.

Nadal and Pete out of contention. Pete for clay, he just can't dominate all 3 of those players to make up for poor clay results. Nadal is more realistic, but he's the worst of the 4 on the most prevalent surface on tour (HC accounts for about half, slightly more, of the calendar.)

Federer and Djokovic. Clay is similar, but I'd favor Djokovic (judgement call). AO it depends on surface, but let's say Djokovic beats Fed in the final. Grass, Djokovic loses in the semi against Fed or Pete. USO again Djokovic probably loses to Fed or Pete.

Sample:
Djokovic: AO W, RG F, WIM SF, USO SF
Federer: AO F, RG SF, WIM W, USO F (Sampras Federer are 50-50 at Wimby and USO, so I gave Fed Wimby and Pete USO).

Slams barely go to Fed, then Novak, then Nadal, then Pete. 1 each though.

ATP finals and M1000s favor the hard court specialists, so this is where Nadal falls off. Pete also didn't take other tournaments as seriously, so not likely to win many. Between Djokovic and Federer I'd put them as pretty close.

Let's say they split the sunshine double, roughly. Novak does better on clay masters. Fed picks up the USO series. Djokovic does better in China, but Fed is better in Paris and ATP finals. Add to that that Federer is more prone to playing 500s than Djokovic and that gives him a definite edge.

I think it's on a hair's edge between Fed and Novak, but several factors line up for Roger. Plus with no mental issues against Djokovic, I think 7/10 times it goes to Fed, 3/10 times it goes to Novak.

 

[Sunny014]

Apart from the Slams, Federer's record in ATP finals his peak was exemplary.

He will definitely pip Novak to the year end 1 in multiple years.

 

[Sunny014]

Probably Federer.

Nadal and Pete out of contention. Pete for clay, he just can't dominate all 3 of those players to make up for poor clay results. Nadal is more realistic, but he's the worst of the 4 on the most prevalent surface on tour (HC accounts for about half, slightly more, of the calendar.)

Federer and Djokovic. Clay is similar, but I'd favor Djokovic (judgement call). AO it depends on surface, but let's say Djokovic beats Fed in the final. Grass, Djokovic loses in the semi against Fed or Pete. USO again Djokovic probably loses to Fed or Pete.

Sample:
Djokovic: AO W, RG F, WIM SF, USO SF
Federer: AO F, RG SF, WIM W, USO F (Sampras Federer are 50-50 at Wimby and USO, so I gave Fed Wimby and Pete USO).

Slams barely go to Fed, then Novak, then Nadal, then Pete. 1 each though.

ATP finals and M1000s favor the hard court specialists, so this is where Nadal falls off. Pete also didn't take other tournaments as seriously, so not likely to win many. Between Djokovic and Federer I'd put them as pretty close.

Let's say they split the sunshine double, roughly. Novak does better on clay masters. Fed picks up the USO series. Djokovic does better in China, but Fed is better in Paris and ATP finals. Add to that that Federer is more prone to playing 500s than Djokovic and that gives him a definite edge.

I think it's on a hair's edge between Fed and Novak, but several factors line up for Roger. Plus with no mental issues against Djokovic, I think 7/10 times it goes to Fed, 3/10 times it goes to Novak.

True.
Those mental issues were due to age gap and the fact that Novak's body has more endurance due to youth, in a peak vs peak 5 set losses would be like 4-5 set wins routine for Fed, if he loses then it would be on the aus courts or on clay to superior baselining.... so the edge is with Fed.

I think Pete would raise his level on hard courts, he would a force too, Nadal would most likely struggle a lot and win nothing on HCs, already his top 10% and top 5% is poor, when we put 3 GOAT level guys against him, that would become 0%

 

[TripleATeam]

True.
Those mental issues were due to age gap and the fact that Novak's body has more endurance due to youth, in a peak vs peak 5 set losses would be like 4-5 set wins routine for Fed, if he loses then it would be on the aus courts or on clay to superior baselining.... so the edge is with Fed.

I think Pete would raise his level on hard courts, he would a force too, Nadal would most likely struggle a lot and win nothing on HCs, already his top 10% and top 5% is poor, when we put 3 GOAT level guys against him, that would become 0%

The mental issues are there for a couple reasons, but those definitely contribute. Faster courts and lower bounce will be Fed's favor, reverse for Novak. Roughly 50-50.

Nadal would do really well on HC, but not as well as he'd need to. He could pull of upsets of the top 3 HC players of all time, but doing 2 in a row would be too difficult. Maybe he'd pull one tourney win on an outdoor court, but not more. Pete would also obviously be competing, especially on indoor HC.

Another consideration is that Pete and Federer would both excel on faster HC whereas Novak would be specializing on slower HC, so it's possible that Fed and Pete divide the faster points and Novak edges ahead because of his advantage on the slower HCs.

 

[ForehandCross]

Lol at people in this thread. They haven't seen peak @ForehandCross hit a,umm well, Forehand cross,

When he does that, the sky thunders and the ground rumbles and his opponents are stunned into a state of stunned stupor .

 

[Sunny014]

The mental issues are there for a couple reasons, but those definitely contribute. Faster courts and lower bounce will be Fed's favor, reverse for Novak. Roughly 50-50.

Nadal would do really well on HC, but not as well as he'd need to. He could pull of upsets of the top 3 HC players of all time, but doing 2 in a row would be too difficult. Maybe he'd pull one tourney win on an outdoor court, but not more. Pete would also obviously be competing, especially on indoor HC.

Another consideration is that Pete and Federer would both excel on faster HC whereas Novak would be specializing on slower HC, so it's possible that Fed and Pete divide the faster points and Novak edges ahead because of his advantage on the slower HCs.

Novak's AO performance at his peak has been same as Federer's USO performance at his peak, you could maybe argue that Novak was a bit more dominant.

However Novak's USO performance is far below Federer's AO performance

So Novak isn't beating Fed and Pete back to back to win USO, thats for sure, and neither is Pete beating the Big 3 back to back to win the AO

Nadal will take a max of 1 HC slam and maybe spring some upsets like u said .... Nadal might beat Fed in semi and then get spanked by novak in finals, or vice versa, or Pete spanks him at the USO, that sort of stuffs

Nadal might be the new murray

 

[Sunny014]

Lol at people in this thread. They haven't seen peak @ForehandCross hit a,umm well, Forehand cross,

When he does that, the sky thunders and the ground rumbles and his opponents are stunned into a state of stunned stupor .

Lol, you r trolling

By the way, please answer seriously, what are Nadal's chances of winning a non clay slam in the presence of Pete, Fed and Novak ?? He will have to certainly beat 2 of those 3 in the semis and finals back to back, what happens ?

I think Nadal would be the new Sir Andy Murray

 

[Antonio Puente]

You're not doing the math on this. Nadal is starting the season with one slam, 3 Masters and a 500. More, if he wants to play more. Under this scenario, if Nadal wins nothing else, it wouldn't be easy for any of the other 3 to top that. No other player is guaranteed anything, and Nadal is certainly capable of winning more.

 

[ForehandCross]

Lol, you r trolling

By the way, please answer seriously, what are Nadal's chances of winning a non clay slam in the presence of Pete, Fed and Novak ?? He will have to certainly beat 2 of those 3 in the semis and finals back to back, what happens ?

I think Nadal would be the new Sir Andy Murray

It's late here in the night and even after hectic day's work I still can't sleep. So I am just trollin around.

Might give a detailed answer tomorrow but my hunch says out of say 6 seasons Djokovic 3-4 times, Federer 1-2 times and Nadal/Sampras 0-1.

 

[Sunny014]

You're not doing the math on this. Nadal is starting the season with one slam, 3 Masters and a 500. More, if he wants to play more. Under this scenario, if Nadal wins nothing else, it wouldn't be easy for any of the other 3 to top that. No other player is guaranteed anything, and Nadal is certainly capable of winning more.

Dude Nadal would look like the 90s clay courters - As simple as that

A force during the clay season and then losing everything everywhere else, look at his HC % vs top 10 and top 5 .... U think that 50% and 40% type numbers won't become 0 in the presence of 3 GOATs?

 

[Cortana]

Federer, Djokovic and Sampras in that order. They all win 1 slam, but Nadal doesn't get to any other final.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Dude Nadal would look like the 90s clay courters - As simple as that

A force during the clay season and then losing everything everywhere else, look at his HC % vs top 10 and top 5 .... U think that 50% and 40% type numbers won't become 0 in the presence of 3 GOATs?

Just like Fed killed him at 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO. Nadal would have no chance.

Hypothetical Fed - God against elite competition. Real Fed - not so much.

 

[ForehandCross]

Whose voting for Sampras lol??? The guy would have nadda from 5000 clay points. While Nadal will have 4000-5000, Djokovic Federer about 1500-2500.

 

[Sunny014]

Just like Fed killed him at 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO. Nadal would have bo chance.

Hypothetical Fed - God against elite competition. Real Fed - Not so much.

Real Fed was 5 years older, this Hypothetical Fed would same aged, so in their mid 20s Fed 2006 would be up against Nadal 11, yes Nadal would have no chance......

 

[Antonio Puente]

Real Fed was 5 years older, this Hypothetical Fed would same aged, so in their mid 20s Fed 2006 would be up against Nadal 11, yes Nadal would have no chance......

Real Fed died in 2007. Lol

 

[Sunny014]

Real Fed died in 2007. Lol

In the presence of 3 superior players Nadal wins 0 just like Murray, infact this would be worse than Murray, Murray could win 3 becaue of fedal injuries, had all 3 been at peak murray would sit on 0 and even stan would.

No room for vulturing when 3 guys are better than you and same aged, this will happen to Nadal ...... He cannot go past Pete-Roger-Novak to win AO/W/USO and he definetly will never ever win ATP finals

 

[Antonio Puente]

He cannot go past Pete-Roger-Novak to win AO/W/USO and he definetly will never ever win ATP finals

No doubt. Beating Fed at Wimbledon or AO seems a complete impossibility. Likewise with Djoker at the USO.

TTW hypotheticals and reality rarely intersect, especially when they involve Fed.

 

[daggerman]

Who knows? We don't even know who'll be Year End #1 this year, where one player has won 3 slams, so why would we be certain about a question like this?

 

[Sunny014]

No doubt. Beating Fed at Wimbledon or AO seems a complete impossibility. Likewise with Djoker at the USO.

TTW hypotheticals and reality rarely intersect, especially when they involve Fed.

Yup it is impossible to beat Fed at W, your fluke 2008 win doesn't prove anything, it is same as Soderling winning over Rafa in 09.
Even if he beats Fed at AO he would still lose to Novak
He has never face peak Fed at USO that was quick, in those conditions any version of Nadal loses, and what about Sampras? A guy who made the final 8 times there..... no chance for Nadal

 

[Sunny014]

Who knows? We don't even know who'll be Year End #1 this year, where one player has won 3 slams, so why would we be certain about a question like this?

But Nadal Fanatics are sure than their clay bully will end the year as rank 1

 

[Sunny014]

In Nadal's own peak on HCs vs Top 10 opponents we have Federer and Novak having higher win %

Rank	Country	Name	Overall Matches	Won	Lost	Played
1	SRB	Novak Djokovic	67.86%	19	9	28
2	SUI	Roger Federer	60.00%	15	10	25
3	ESP	Rafael Nadal	58.82%	10	7	17
4	FRA	Jo Wilfried Tsonga	53.85%	7	6	13
4	SUI	Stan Wawrinka	53.85%	7	6	13
6	GBR	Andy Murray	46.67%	7	8	15

 

[Antonio Puente]

But Nadal Fanatics are sure than their clay bully will end the year as rank 1

No, I said he is the only player guaranteed anything in this scenario, and if the other three beat one another up for the 3 slams and 6 Masters, it wouldn't take many more victories for Nadal to become #1.

 

[Rudiiii]

Nadal would for sure win RG,but it is matter of opinion if he would win all Masters 1000 on clay,and i think that he wouldn't. In situation where you have 3(three) ATG againts you, you would focus on RG, not Masters. On HC he would be pigeon, and on Wimbly, ai don't see him passing SF, or if he somehow reach final, straight set against any of three guys. Fight would be againts Fed and Djoko, and who wins more depends on who playes better on clay and USO season

 

[D.Nalby12]

Federer has shown highest level over a season. There is no doubt about that. Never forget 2011 Fed had 2 MP to go 2-1 up in Slams against peak Djokovic. Federer' only problem was matchup thing against Nadal. Otherwise he will come on top against anyone at his peak.

 

[Sunny014]

With Djokovic and Federer being in Rome 2011 and Rome 2006 form Nadal is not guaranteed anything outside the french open @Antonio Puente when he has to beat them back to back

 

[D.Nalby12]

In Nadal's own peak on HCs vs Top 10 opponents we have Federer and Novak having higher win %

Rank	Country	Name	Overall Matches	Won	Lost	Played
1	SRB	Novak Djokovic	67.86%	19	9	28
2	SUI	Roger Federer	60.00%	15	10	25
3	ESP	Rafael Nadal	58.82%	10	7	17
4	FRA	Jo Wilfried Tsonga	53.85%	7	6	13
4	SUI	Stan Wawrinka	53.85%	7	6	13
6	GBR	Andy Murray	46.67%	7	8	15

Oh man your avatar makes me go crazy. .

 

[Sunny014]

Federer has shown highest level over a season. There is no doubt about that. Never forget 2011 Fed had 2 MP to go 2-1 up in Slams against peak Djokovic. Federer' only problem was matchup thing against Nadal. Otherwise he will come on top against anyone at his peak.

True .... Look at Fed's % vs top 5 in ATP finals, it is like 88.2 % Nobody would bet against such a person 9 times out of 10
Also his tie break % on grass, that is enough to even pip Sampras there....

 

[Sunny014]

Overall Careerwise Fed at ATP finals vs top 5 ranked players, there is a big difference in win% vs Fed and rest of the ATGs ...... Federer's greatness is quite underrated

Rank	Country	Name	Overall Matches	Won	Lost	Played
1	SUI	Roger Federer	78.05%	32	9	41
2	USA	Ivan Lendl	70.37%	19	8	27
3	USA	Pete Sampras	67.86%	19	9	28
4	AUS	Lleyton Hewitt	66.67%	8	4	12
5	GER	Boris Becker	65.52%	19	10	29
6	SWE	Bjorn Borg	63.64%	7	4	11
7	SRB	Novak Djokovic	56.00%	14	11	25
8	ARG	Guillermo Vilas	54.55%	6	5	11
9	USA	Andre Agassi	53.57%	15	13	28
10	SWE	Stefan Edberg	52.38%	11	10	21
11	USA	John McEnroe	50.00%	8	8	16
11	GER	Alexander Zverev	50.00%	5	5	10
13	ESP	Rafael Nadal	47.06%	8	9	17

 

[Phoenix1983]

It's between Fed and PETE.

I went for PETE because he'd win the biggest matches.

 

[zvelf]

Probably Federer.

Nadal and Pete out of contention. Pete for clay, he just can't dominate all 3 of those players to make up for poor clay results. Nadal is more realistic, but he's the worst of the 4 on the most prevalent surface on tour (HC accounts for about half, slightly more, of the calendar.)

Federer and Djokovic. Clay is similar, but I'd favor Djokovic (judgement call). AO it depends on surface, but let's say Djokovic beats Fed in the final. Grass, Djokovic loses in the semi against Fed or Pete. USO again Djokovic probably loses to Fed or Pete.

Sample:
Djokovic: AO W, RG F, WIM SF, USO SF
Federer: AO F, RG SF, WIM W, USO F (Sampras Federer are 50-50 at Wimby and USO, so I gave Fed Wimby and Pete USO).

Slams barely go to Fed, then Novak, then Nadal, then Pete. 1 each though.

ATP finals and M1000s favor the hard court specialists, so this is where Nadal falls off. Pete also didn't take other tournaments as seriously, so not likely to win many. Between Djokovic and Federer I'd put them as pretty close.

Let's say they split the sunshine double, roughly. Novak does better on clay masters. Fed picks up the USO series. Djokovic does better in China, but Fed is better in Paris and ATP finals. Add to that that Federer is more prone to playing 500s than Djokovic and that gives him a definite edge.

I think it's on a hair's edge between Fed and Novak, but several factors line up for Roger. Plus with no mental issues against Djokovic, I think 7/10 times it goes to Fed, 3/10 times it goes to Novak.

I generally believe it's senseless to compare across generations because players' styles adapted to compete against other players of their time, not to players 15, 30, or 45 years earlier. But for the sake of argument, I agree with the evaluation that Nadal and Pete are out of contention for the reasons you give. However, as much as you slightly edge Federer over Djokovic for the top, I'd slightly edge Djokovic over Federer. Federer's win percentage stats for 2003-2010 are inflated because competition was a little weaker than Djokovic's 2010-2016, particularly when you look up those ATP Finals line-ups. It's also weird to put Federer ahead under the assumption he would play more 500s. If Djokovic understood that there was a competition among the 4 to score the most points by the end of the year, then he would play more strategically for that one particular year instead of selecting tournaments based on expected career achievements, not those of a single year. But most importantly, peak Djokovic's game was adapted to handle peak Federer's game and not vice versa.

 

[Sunny014]

I generally believe it's senseless to compare across generations because players' styles adapted to compete against other players of their time, not to players 15, 30, or 45 years earlier. But for the sake of argument, I agree with the evaluation that Nadal and Pete are out of contention for the reasons you give. However, as much as you slightly edge Federer over Djokovic for the top, I'd slightly edge Djokovic over Federer. Federer's win percentage stats for 2003-2010 are inflated because competition was a little weaker than Djokovic's 2010-2016, particularly when you look up those ATP Finals line-ups. It's also weird to put Federer ahead under the assumption he would play more 500s. If Djokovic understood that there was a competition among the 4 to score the most points by the end of the year, then he would play more strategically for that one particular year instead of selecting tournaments based on expected career achievements, not those of a single year. But most importantly, peak Djokovic's game was adapted to handle peak Federer's game and not vice versa.

In the ATP finals in Djokvic' own peak Federer has higher win% despite being in 30s vs Djokovic's competition
So your logic of Fed's numbers inflated in his peak is wrong
Fed would appear equally dominant in any era

Overall in Novak's peak at the ATP finals (10-16)

Rank	Country	Name	Tour Finals Matches	Won	Lost	Played
1	SUI	Roger Federer	82.14%	23	5	28
2	SRB	Novak Djokovic	80.65%	25	6	31
3	ESP	Rafael Nadal	70.59%	12	5	17
4	GBR	Andy Murray	55.00%	11	9	20
5	SUI	Stan Wawrinka	46.67%	7	8	15

Vs top 5 at ATP finals in novak's peak

Rank	Country	Name	Tour Finals Matches	Won	Lost	Played
1	SUI	Roger Federer	76.47%	13	4	17
2	SRB	Novak Djokovic	66.67%	10	5	15
3	ESP	Rafael Nadal	55.56%	5	4	9
4	GBR	Andy Murray	35.71%	5	9	14

 

[The Fedfather]

If we were to really consider this scenario and think through hypothetical draws, with points affecting seedings and then who's going to play who, some players being more tired toward the end of the season, etc. then it's useless to predict. But if the hypothetical is just who would get the most points based on the peak performances they showed at all tournaments in the season, that would be Federer, I think.

It's yet another discussion that doesn't have the right answer. If such a season were real, it would be insanity. Betting difficulty over 9000.

 

[TripleATeam]

No, I said he is the only player guaranteed anything in this scenario, and if the other three beat one another up for the 3 slams and 6 Masters, it wouldn't take many more victories for Nadal to become #1.

Ok, say Nadal wins RG and all clay M1000s, and say the other 3 beat each other perfectly. Each of them get optimal results for Nadal on the other slams and masters.

Let's generously say that they all get 1W, 1F. 2SFs in slams. Pete could be a little less in RG.

The clay results they get are about 1050 points altogether each M1000 (finalist, semi, and R16 for Pete).

The ATP finals are indoor, so we have 1 group where there is no loss for the HC specialist and 1 group where the 2 of them move on, 1 with 3-0 and one with 2-1. Rafa also goes 2-1. Rafa loses the SF, the rest of the points are divided. Total = 2900. The HC masters, assuming Nadal loses every SF give 1960. Add it all together and divide by 3 and add in slam values, you get each of Sampras, Fed, and Djokovic are at roughly 10576 points (with no 500s). Nadal, under that assumption, is at 9800 points.

It would take Nadal winning 2 HC M1000 semifinals against these 3 to take YE#1 in the most advantageous scenario, and realistically (non-indoor) he has 4 chances to do it. So unless you think that Nadal is 50-50 against the 3 HC GOATs during their peaks on HC, then Nadal loses YE#1 guaranteed.

Even then it isn't 100%, and Federer is practically guaranteed to also play Dubai, Basel, and Halle for another 1500 points. It's fairly safe to say Nadal is out of YE#1 contention in this scenario.

 

[Sunny014]

Highest % of Points difference between year end 1 and year end 2 for all seasons

Rank	Country	Name	No. 2 Player	Points No. 1	Points No. 2	Points Pct. Diff.	Season
1	SUI	Roger Federer	Rafael Nadal	8370	4470	87.2%	2006
2	SRB	Novak Djokovic	Andy Murray	16585	8945	85.4%	2015
3	SUI	Roger Federer	Andy Roddick	6335	3655	73.3%	2004
4	USA	Andre Agassi	Yevgeny Kafelnikov	5048	3465	45.7%	1999
5	SRB	Novak Djokovic	Rafael Nadal	13630	9595	42.1%	2011
6	USA	Pete Sampras	Patrick Rafter	4547	3210	41.7%	1997
7	SUI	Roger Federer	Rafael Nadal	6725	4765	41.1%	2005
8	ESP	Rafael Nadal	Roger Federer	12450	9145	36.1%	2010
9	USA	Pete Sampras	Michael Chang	4865	3597	35.3%	1996
10	AUS	Lleyton Hewitt	Andre Agassi	4485	3395	32.1%	2002
11	SRB	Novak Djokovic	Roger Federer	12920	10265	25.9%	2012
12	ESP	Rafael Nadal	Roger Federer	6675	5305	25.8%	2008
13	SUI	Roger Federer	Rafael Nadal	7180	5735	25.2%	2007
14	SRB	Novak Djokovic	Rafael Nadal	12030	9850	22.1%	2020
15	SRB	Novak Djokovic	Rafael Nadal	9045	7480	20.9%	2018
16	USA	Pete Sampras	Michael Stich	4128	3445	19.8%	1993
17	SRB	Novak Djokovic	Roger Federer	11360	9775	16.2%	2014
18	SUI	Roger Federer	Rafael Nadal	10550	9205	14.6%	2009

 

[Sunny014]

Ok, say Nadal wins RG and all clay M1000s, and say the other 3 beat each other perfectly. Each of them get optimal results for Nadal on the other slams and masters.

Let's generously say that they all get 1W, 1F. 2SFs in slams. Pete could be a little less in RG.

The clay results they get are about 1050 points altogether each M1000 (finalist, semi, and R16 for Pete).

The ATP finals are indoor, so we have 1 group where there is no loss for the HC specialist and 1 group where the 2 of them move on, 1 with 3-0 and one with 2-1. Rafa also goes 2-1. Rafa loses the SF, the rest of the points are divided. Total = 2900. The HC masters, assuming Nadal loses every SF give 1960. Add it all together and divide by 3 and add in slam values, you get each of Sampras, Fed, and Djokovic are at roughly 10576 points (with no 500s). Nadal, under that assumption, is at 9800 points.

It would take Nadal winning 2 HC M1000 semifinals against these 3 to take YE#1 in the most advantageous scenario, and realistically (non-indoor) he has 4 chances to do it. So unless you think that Nadal is 50-50 against the 3 HC GOATs during their peaks on HC, then Nadal loses YE#1 guaranteed.

Even then it isn't 100%, and Federer is practically guaranteed to also play Dubai, Basel, and Halle for another 1500 points. It's fairly safe to say Nadal is out of YE#1 contention in this scenario.

I can assure you Nadal isn't guaranteed for certain to win anything outside the french open.

Nadal was pwned by Novak on clay in best of 3 in 2011
Federer also put up high levels of play on clay in best of 3, remember Fed even bageled Nadal on clay at Hamburg?

No chance of Nadal waltzing with French+Barcelona+Monte Carlo+Rome like his fans think.

FO he surely will win, apart from that no assurances.

 

[TripleATeam]

I generally believe it's senseless to compare across generations because players' styles adapted to compete against other players of their time, not to players 15, 30, or 45 years earlier. But for the sake of argument, I agree with the evaluation that Nadal and Pete are out of contention for the reasons you give. However, as much as you slightly edge Federer over Djokovic for the top, I'd slightly edge Djokovic over Federer. Federer's win percentage stats for 2003-2010 are inflated because competition was a little weaker than Djokovic's 2010-2016, particularly when you look up those ATP Finals line-ups. It's also weird to put Federer ahead under the assumption he would play more 500s. If Djokovic understood that there was a competition among the 4 to score the most points by the end of the year, then he would play more strategically for that one particular year instead of selecting tournaments based on expected career achievements, not those of a single year. But most importantly, peak Djokovic's game was adapted to handle peak Federer's game and not vice versa.

I can see that and respect it. I was just following the assumption that their disposition would be like their peak years, where Novak would generally skip the 500s and play some, whereas Federer was very inclined to play them even if the points were unnecessary for him. Even so though, I think Federer is more successful at Rotterdam, Dubai, Halle, Basel. You could say Djokovic would be better at Washington, China, and Vienna, plus clay, but I think Federer would have the edge in 500s.

 

[zvelf]

In the ATP finals in Djokvic' own peak Federer has higher win% despite being in 30s vs Djokovic's competition
So your logic of Fed's numbers inflated in his peak is wrong
Fed would appear equally dominant in any era

Overall in Novak's peak at the ATP finals (10-16)

Rank	Country	Name	Tour Finals Matches	Won	Lost	Played
1	SUI	Roger Federer	82.14%	23	5	28
2	SRB	Novak Djokovic	80.65%	25	6	31
3	ESP	Rafael Nadal	70.59%	12	5	17
4	GBR	Andy Murray	55.00%	11	9	20
5	SUI	Stan Wawrinka	46.67%	7	8	15

Vs top 5 at ATP finals in novak's peak

Rank	Country	Name	Tour Finals Matches	Won	Lost	Played
1	SUI	Roger Federer	76.47%	13	4	17
2	SRB	Novak Djokovic	66.67%	10	5	15
3	ESP	Rafael Nadal	55.56%	5	4	9
4	GBR	Andy Murray	35.71%	5	9	14

This is a bit illusory because the statistical significance between 82% and 81% here is tiny given the small sample size and of course, winning the important matches, that is, the final, is what counts the most. In the 6 YECs that both Djokovic and Federer played during this period, Djokovic won it 4 times to Federer's 2.

 

[GabeT]

So this is all 4 against each other at the same time? How about one slam each?

 

[Sunny014]

This is a bit illusory because the statistical significance between 82% and 81% here is tiny given the small sample size and of course, winning the important matches, that is, the final, is what counts the most. In the 6 YECs that both Djokovic and Federer played during this period, Djokovic won it 4 times to Federer's 2.

This is a sample during Djokovic's peak 11-16 when Fed is 29-35 years old and still it is this close with Fed leading
You think Fed 22-28 would not be having those 4-5 wins at his peak over anyone including Novak ?

Also check the top 5 % .... when rivals became better then Fed emerges ahead as gap widens

If everyone is at their peak then Fed's chances of reaching the final in every tournament would be extremely high and if you reach more times then you convert more as well, thats logical.....

 

[Madinolf]

2011 Djokovic went 10-1 against Fedal who had won all four Slams in the previous year.

 

[Sunny014]

Plus historically year end championships have never been won by guys in their 30s, Federer is the oldest guy to win it at 30 years of age.
So in Djokovic's peak Fed was 29-36 and he was still having a higher % of wins over top 5 and even overall, just the younger guy Novak who is in his 20s won 4 titles and Federer won 2 doesn't mean anything, Novak is weaker than Federer there.

Fed is the GOAT at the YECs, everyone knows it.

 

[zvelf]

This is a sample during Djokovic's peak 11-16 when Fed is 29-35 years old and still it is this close with Fed leading
You think Fed 22-28 would not be having those 4-5 wins at his peak over anyone including Novak ?

You're still being a bit misleading. 35-year old Federer didn't play in the ATP Final at all in 2016 so trying to count this version of him isn't accurate. Also the sampling you gave included 2010 and did not start from 2011. So Federer achieved well in ATP Finals until he was 34. As Djokovic is proving this year with a potential CYGS, age 34 does not necessarily mean you are over-the-hill. And no, I don't think it's clear that 22-28 year-old Fed beats 2011-2016 Djokovic, again, because that Djokovic's game was adapted to handle Federer and it clearly did so well, albeit an older version. 22-28 year old Fed's game on the other hand was not adapted against peak Djokovic.

 

[Sunny014]

2011 Djokovic went 10-1 against Fedal who had won all four Slams in the previous year.

nd Sam Querrey kicked Novak's arse when Novak was holding all 4 slams together in 2016

Such logics of yours have no relevance.

 

[Sunny014]

You're still being a bit misleading. 35-year old Federer didn't play in the ATP Final at all in 2016 so trying to count this version of him isn't accurate. Also the sampling you gave included 2010 and did not start from 2011. So Federer achieved well in ATP Finals until he was 34. As Djokovic is proving this year with a potential CYGS, age 34 does not necessarily mean you are over-the-hill. And no, I don't think it's clear that 22-28 year-old Fed beats 2011-2016 Djokovic, again, because that Djokovic's game was adapted to handle Federer and it clearly did so well, albeit an older version. 22-28 year old Fed's game on the other hand was not adapted against peak Djokovic.

Age matters at World tour finals, these are the oldest champions ..... Federer won twice after 28 and it was an exceptional feat

Djokovic hasn't shown anything of that sorts....

Rank	Country	Name	Age	Season	Tournament
1	SUI	Roger Federer	30 years 3 mons 12 days	2011	Tour Finals
2	GBR	Andy Murray	29 years 5 mons 30 days	2016	Tour Finals
3	ROU	Ilie Nastase	29 years 4 mons 11 days	1975	Masters
4	SUI	Roger Federer	29 years 3 mons 13 days	2010	Tour Finals
5	SRB	Novak Djokovic	28 years 5 mons 24 days	2015	Tour Finals
6	RUS	Nikolay Davydenko	28 years 5 mons 20 days	2009	Tour Finals
7	USA	Pete Sampras	28 years 3 mons 10 days	1999	Tour Finals
8	GER	Boris Becker	27 years 11 mons 22 days	1995	Tour Finals
9	ESP	Manuel Orantes	27 years 9 mons 27 days	1976	Masters
10	USA	Ivan Lendl	27 years 8 mons 26 days	1987	Masters
11	SRB	Novak Djokovic	27 years 5 mons 18 days	2014

 

[zvelf]

nd Sam Querrey kicked Novak's arse when Novak was holding all 4 slams together in 2016

You're cherry-picking a single data point and trying to generalize to something that's not there. Federer won 3 majors in 2004 and lost to Hrbaty in Federer's first round in Cincinatti. That doesn't mean anything. Anyone can cherry-pick one match.

Age matters at World tour finals, these are the oldest champions ..... Federer won twice after 28 and it was an exceptional feat

Djokovic hasn't shown anything of that sorts....

No, Djokovic has only won the first 3 majors of this year at age 33-34, something not achieved by any male player in over 50 years, which means a lot more than winning a single YEC at age 30.