Seasons with most wins over top-10s

[NatF]

We are comparing competition across 238 matches. So any stat needs to include them all. that’s what % of top 10 players does. Stats on 1-2 matches doesn’t.

You're not comparing competition you're comparing the rankings. Competition is based on level of play. You're making an assumption that Djokovic faced tougher competition based on meeting slightly more top 10 players. I'm saying ranking alone isn't enough to reach a conclusion, especially when Federer met more 11-12 ranked players, players can have surface preferences etc...

We know that quality of play can vary wildly even for top 10 players anyway. Lumping all top 10 matches together, excluding all others and then trying to claim that you're presenting some factual representation on the actual competition faced is ludicrous.

 

[RF-18]

Roddick had better stats versus a much better Federer than Djokovic did

Which match are you referring to?

 

[KINGROGER]

what do federer's record prove then? he won 1000000 matches but who can tell us that was not because of a weak field?

Champions define eras. The level of a couple of players can fluctuate much more easily than that of hundreds/thousands of players. Example: Djokovic disappears --> Federer wins 3 slams.

Prime Federer disappears; Djokovic wins 11 slams. Prime Nadal disappears; Djokovic wins 6 slams in 2014-2016

 

[NatF]

Which match are you referring to?

The ones I posted the stats for...

 

[BrokenGears]

Plexicushion? Sure.

RG is 60/40 Fed if lighter balls like 2011. 2006 hit better from both sides and was quicker.
Wimbledon is like 70/30 at least.
USO? LOL. 2011 Fed can go 2 sets up and have double MP then peak 2006 Fed with better absolutely everything is clear favourite. 70/30.

Just watching any of their 2007-2008, 2011 USO matches to see how they match up there. Unless you’re trying to say 2006 Fed is worse than all those versions. In which case. LOL.

lmao 2011 RG was an anomaly. You can't use lighter balls everywhere.

USO 2011 was much faster than USO 2018. Fed 2006 isn't doing **** on current USO courts

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Plexicushion? Sure.

RG is 60/40 Fed if lighter balls like 2011. 2006 hit better from both sides and was quicker.
Wimbledon is like 70/30 at least.
USO? LOL. 2011 Fed can go 2 sets up and have double MP then peak 2006 Fed with better absolutely everything is clear favourite. 70/30.

Just watching any of their 2007-2008, 2011 USO matches to see how they match up there. Unless you’re trying to say 2006 Fed is worse than all those versions. In which case. LOL.

Reality:

Djokovic has an active streak of 11 wins in grand slams against the three best players of the 2000s. Federer's best? 2 wins.

 

[GabeT]

You're not comparing competition you're comparing the rankings. Competition is based on level of play. You're making an assumption that Djokovic faced tougher competition based on meeting slightly more top 10 players. I'm saying ranking alone isn't enough to reach a conclusion, especially when Federer met more 11-12 ranked players, players can have surface preferences etc...

We know that quality of play can vary wildly even for top 10 players anyway. Lumping all top 10 matches together, excluding all others and then trying to claim that you're presenting some factual representation on the actual competition faced is ludicrous.

Of course. % of top 10 is a proxy for what we truly want to measure. It’s not meant to be a perfect measure of competition because that doesn’t exist.

This is a very common problem in the sciences, particularly social sciences. You wish to measure X but have no direct measure of it.

You may also have heard of the difference between conceptual and operational definitions. Here the conceptual definition is strength of opposition faced. Operationally, one imperfect way to measure it is to look at % of top ten players faced. But it’s not the only one. If you have other alternative measures I’m happy to look at them.

 

[RF-18]

The ones I posted the stats for...

Different match, different strength and weaknesses, different match up. It's time you understand that the stats for both matches can't be looked at similarly. This is basic logic and understanding of the game.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

especially when Federer met more 11-12 ranked players

You didn't answer about this:

Djokovic beat more top-3 ranked players. 14 to 8. Average per slam: 1 to 0.4.

And meeting a top-3 or not truly can make a difference for players of this caliber, while there's no such a big difference with lower ranked opponents.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

You may also have heard of the difference between conceptual and operational definitions. Here the conceptual definition is strength of opposition faced. Operationally, one imperfect way to measure it is to look at % of top ten players faced. But it’s not the only one. If you have other alternative measures I’m happy to look at them.

This statement implies that "percentage of top 10 players faced" still contributes in some way to measuring strength of opposition faced, i.e. that there is some correlation between the former and the latter.

 

[GabeT]

This statement implies that "percentage of top 10 players faced" still contributes in some way to measuring strength of opposition faced, i.e. that there is some correlation between the former and the latter.

Exactly.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Exactly.

So, why take the existence of this correlation for granted?

 

[NatF]

Of course. % of top 10 is a proxy for what we truly want to measure. It’s not meant to be a perfect measure of competition because that doesn’t exist.

This is a very common problem in the sciences, particularly social sciences. You wish to measure X but have no direct measure of it.

You may also have heard of the difference between conceptual and operational definitions. Here the conceptual definition is strength of opposition faced. Operationally, one imperfect way to measure it is to look at % of top ten players faced. But it’s not the only one. If you have other alternative measures I’m happy to look at them.

What does an imperfect measure with only a 16% difference tell us?

Also can you tell me why a meeting against the #10 player counts but the #11 doesn't?

Different match, different strength and weaknesses, different match up. It's time you understand that the stats for both matches can't be looked at similarly. This is basic logic and understanding of the game.

Guy don't talk to me about basic logic. The match was on the same court and involved the same player in both matches. Basic logic states that if Player A posts better stats against Player C than Player B, then Player A was playing the better tennis. Unless you think Roddick's game matches up better than Djokovic's against Federer

Roddick plays Federer and hits 42 winners, induces 34 errors and only makes 24 errors - 76 winning shots to 24 errors (3.17x)

Djokovic plays Federer and hits 35 winners, induces 58 errors and makes 37 errors - 94 winning shots to 37 errors (2.51x)

I don't think it's reasonable to claim Djokovic played much better tennis, unless you think the 2015 court is slower and Federer played better defence in 2015 than 2007

I'm not saying Roddick would beat Djokovic or 2015 Federer either BTW. Point is that there should be a much more nuanced discussion about level of play and competition and to be frank most of you don't seem interested in this...

You didn't answer about this:

Djokovic beat more top-3 ranked players. 14 to 8. Average per slam: 1 to 0.4.

And meeting a top-3 or not truly can make a difference for players of this caliber, while there's no such a big difference with lower ranked opponents.

Still...Level of play =/= Ranking

Why top 3? Why not top 5? What about when an in-form player isn't ranked inside the top 3 - especially on a surface like grass? What about Nadal last year? He ended the year #1 but he doesn't count?

Beating Del Potro, Murray and Federer of 2014-2016 is that impressive, regardless of their rankings...

Federer in 2011, Nadal in 2011-2012 and at Wimbledon this year - great wins. I don't lump individual great matches together as one statistic, misses the forest from the tree's. Beating an average at best Murray on clay in 2016 wasn't as good a win as beating an on fire Del Potro at the French in 2009.

You can keep your statistics man, you spend a lot of time trying to make Federer look bad. I'll carry on enjoying watching the tennis matches.

 

[GabeT]

So, why take the existence of this correlation for granted?

It’s not based on a correlation but rather a definition. Becoming a top ten player is, by definition, an indication that a player is among the very best in the world. That’s why the specialized press will use it regularly (such and such a player returns to the top 10 or reaches top 10 for the first time). It’s not a perfect measure, but those don’t exist.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Beating an average at best Murray on clay in 2016 wasn't as good a win as beating an on fire Del Potro at the French in 2009.

Even as a Fed fan, I don't agree with this. Murray wasn't average on clay that year, his level was really high and he was better than Del Potro 2009 no doubt.

His win against Wawrinka in RG was the highest level I've ever seen from him on clay.

 

[GabeT]

What does an imperfect measure with only a 16% difference tell us?

Also can you tell me why a meeting against the #10 player counts but the #11 doesn't?

The 16% difference is almost identical to the difference in slams won by Fed and Nadal. So I think it tells us something.

I used % of top 10 played because you provided that information. There are many other possible measures. For example, we could look at the median ranking of players faced, not just the % ranked 10 or higher.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It’s not based on a correlation but rather a definition. Becoming a top ten player is, by definition, an indication that a player is among the very best in the world. That’s why the specialized press will use it regularly (such and such a player returns to the top 10 or reaches top 10 for the first time). It’s not a perfect measure, but those don’t exist.

With expressions like the bolded, it is used as a measure of success. If it is stipulated that a more successful player isn't necessarily better than a less successful one, then it is entirely logical that a higher ranked player isn't necessarily better than a lower ranked one.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Even as a Fed fan, I don't agree with this. Murray wasn't average on clay that year, his level was really high and he was better than Del Potro 2009 no doubt.

His win against Wawrinka in RG was the highest level I've ever seen from him on clay.

Murray's SF level has nothing to do with his F level (why does it need to be repeated that you can't properly judge a particular match based on other matches?). Djokovic was making him run (more than anyone else, true), and Murray seemed to be running out of gas by the end of set 2 (probably had to do with those dumb five-setters at the start of the tournament) and failed to put up much resistance until Djoko got tight serving for it. In contrast, del Potro continued to give his all deep into the fifth (admitted looked out of it in the fourth but managed to regroup and make RF fight for it) and didn't appear tired any more than Federer himself.

In short, Murray played 2/4 solid sets and del Potro 4/5, no contest there.

 

[NatF]

The 16% difference is almost identical to the difference in slams won by Fed and Nadal. So I think it tells us something.

I used % of top 10 played because you provided that information. There are many other possible measures. For example, we could look at the median ranking of players faced, not just the % ranked 10 or higher.

But we're not comparing Federer and Nadal are we?

Non of those measures focus on the matches themselves, so they're not actually useful...

Anyway, let's leave it here we're going in circles.

 

[GabeT]

With expressions like the bolded, it is used as a measure of success. If it is stipulated that a more successful player isn't necessarily better than a less successful one, then it is entirely logical that a higher ranked player isn't necessarily better than a lower ranked one.

Not sure what you mean by a more successful player isn’t better than a less successful one.

 

[GabeT]

But we're not comparing Federer and Nadal are we?

Non of those measures focus on the matches themselves, so they're not actually useful...

Anyway, let's leave it here we're going in circles.

They are summary measures of all matches played. If you want to argue that, say, Fed faced greatest competition in the 2006 Wimbledon final than Nole did in the 2014 Wimbledon final that would require focusing on specific matches. It if you are taking a about the level of competition faced over 238 matches then you need some kind of average.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

They are summary measures of all matches played. If you want to argue that, say, Fed faced greatest competition in the 2006 Wimbledon final than Nole did in the 2014 Wimbledon final that would require focusing on specific matches. It if you are taking a about the level of competition faced over 238 matches then you need some kind of average.

We're talking hundreds of matches, not thousands, so they can be discussed/analysed in detail although that would take a ton of time but less than a lifetime, no? Let's say only matches from QF onwards matter, because that's usually the case except when an early round match turns into a fight (Federer-Haas, Federer-Andreev, Djokovic-Wawrinka etc.), which should be included as exceptions. So, to analyse every instance of Fed/Djok/Nad reaching a Slam SF, we'd need to analyse about 300 matches, which is reasonably doable and definitely better than relying on approximations and assumptions.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Even as a Fed fan, I don't agree with this. Murray wasn't average on clay that year, his level was really high and he was better than Del Potro 2009 no doubt.

His win against Wawrinka in RG was the highest level I've ever seen from him on clay.

He was two points away from losing to Stepanek.

 

[GabeT]

We're talking hundreds of matches, not thousands, so they can be discussed/analysed in detail although that would take a ton of time but less than a lifetime, no? Let's say only matches from QF onwards matter, because that's usually the case except when an early round match turns into a fight (Federer-Haas, Federer-Andreev, Djokovic-Wawrinka etc.), which should be included as exceptions. So, to analyse every instance of Fed/Djok/Nad reaching a Slam SF, we'd need to analyse about 300 matches, which is reasonably doable and definitely better than relying on approximations and assumptions.

Sure, one can do that. You would still need some kind of summary statistic. Suppose you went through every match and had some way to determine the strength of the opposition for each of them. You would still need to average them all to compare.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Sure, one can do that. You would still need some kind of summary statistic. Suppose you went through every match and had some way to determine the strength of the opposition for each of them. You would still need to average them all to compare.

Definitely a weighted average though. Probably some ELO-like system with each player-match instance getting assigned a rating based on its calculated level of play (rather than a predictive value based on previous scoreline performances, as with actual ELO). Something to think about as well, but cetainly an easier task compared to developing a nuanced algorithm to calculate level properly and produce correct ratings in the first place.

 

[KINGROGER]

Reality:

Djokovic has an active streak of 11 wins in grand slams against the three best players of the 2000s. Federer's best? 2 wins.

Reality: none of this streak came vs Federer at his best (actually in the 2000s before he hit his 30s)

Reality: 20>14

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Even as a Fed fan, I don't agree with this. Murray wasn't average on clay that year, his level was really high and he was better than Del Potro 2009 no doubt.

His win against Wawrinka in RG was the highest level I've ever seen from him on clay.

You don't sound like a Fed fan to me.

 

[KINGROGER]

lmao 2011 RG was an anomaly. You can't use lighter balls everywhere.

USO 2011 was much faster than USO 2018. Fed 2006 isn't doing **** on current USO courts

My hypothetical was based on the faster USO courts. Where peak Fed is favourite vs everyone.

And LMAO Fed is better than Nole at RG. The match is on his racket. If he hits too many UFE he loses. See 2012 where Nole basically pushed and Federer imploded. 2006 Fed wouldn’t hit nearly as many errors and would dominate with his FH.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

My hypothetical was based on the faster USO courts. Where peak Fed is favourite vs everyone.

And LMAO Fed is better than Nole at RG. The match is on his racket. If he hits too many UFE he loses. See 2012 where Nole basically pushed and Federer imploded. 2006 Fed wouldn’t hit nearly as many errors and would dominate with his FH.

Best gem is that peak Fed isn't doing anything on current USO courts lmao. BrokenGears is like 17 years old and has barely watched anything, he wouldn't even know what peak Fed was like.

This is a guy that didn't drop a single set on the way to winning the AO in 2007 which was a pretty slow court. Yet we are to believe he isn't ever winning the USO if he was at his peak lol.

I'm so close to putting this little one on ignore it isn't funny. Really isn't worth a response man.

 

[uscwang]

Yet another record following NCYGS and Career Golden Masters + GS (there is not even a name for it) that is considered "impressive" rather than great, simply because the chosen one couldn't possibly do it.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Yet another achievement following NCYGS and Career Golden Masters + GS (there is not even a name for it) that is considered "impressive" rather than great, simply because the chosen one couldn't possibly do it.

It's not something a player can aim to achieve since he can't pick his opponents.

 

[uscwang]

It's not something a player can aim to achieve since he can't pick his opponents.

Make it a record.

 

[BrokenGears]

My hypothetical was based on the faster USO courts. Where peak Fed is favourite vs everyone.

And LMAO Fed is better than Nole at RG. The match is on his racket. If he hits too many UFE he loses. See 2012 where Nole basically pushed and Federer imploded. 2006 Fed wouldn’t hit nearly as many errors and would dominate with his FH.

Then what abt current courts? Why do you have to give Fed so many advantages lmao.

Novak wouldn’t just sit around

Best gem is that peak Fed isn't doing anything on current USO courts lmao. BrokenGears is like 17 years old and has barely watched anything, he wouldn't even know what peak Fed was like.

This is a guy that didn't drop a single set on the way to winning the AO in 2007 which was a pretty slow court. Yet we are to believe he isn't ever winning the USO if he was at his peak lol.

I'm so close to putting this little one on ignore it isn't funny. Really isn't worth a response man.

I’ve watched plenty peak Fed. I watched him lose several times to Rafa at RG in highlights and I’ve watched a lot of his USO matches. He was a god, but really besides Rafa, he didn’t play any other ATG. You can correct me. I also watched a lot of his matches with Nalbandian, Hewit, and Davy. I watched a lot of his AO matches.

Courts were much faster then as well. Pretending that he would do as well as he did back then rn is a lie.

Which is literally why Fed said in 2008 that the AO courts were extremely slow and that he didn’t like it

There’s a reason why I don’t ignore anyway, I like looking at many opinion as possible. If you want to ignore me, fine

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Make it a record.

It's a mix of both or neither. A player can't aim to break Novak's record either.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I’ve watched plenty peak Fed. I watched him lose several times to Rafa at RG in highlights and I’ve watched a lot of his USO matches. He was a god, but really besides Rafa, he didn’t play any other ATG. You can correct me. I also watched a lot of his matches with Nalbandian, Hewit, and Davy. I watched a lot of his AO matches.

Courts were much faster then as well. Pretending that he would do as well as he did back then rn is a lie.

Which is literally why Fed said in 2008 that the AO courts were extremely slow and that he didn’t like it

There’s a reason why I don’t ignore anyway, I like looking at many opinion as possible. If you want to ignore me, fine

But then in 2010 Federer won the Australian Open again on a "slow court".

Yes, let's pretend the Australian Open had fast courts in 2007 despite Hewitt complaining year after year that they were too slow at his peak (which was 2001-2005). No. The courts weren't fast.

He'd do well. Federer wasn't even bad on slow courts lol. He had enough time to set up his shots and against anybody not named Djokovic or Nadal during his best years he had virtually no trouble dispatching anybody there.

He played Agassi. I consider Agassi an ATG and if you guys are going to hang onto old man Fed, I'm certainly going to hang onto old man Agassi.

 

[Jaitock1991]

If people say Federer winning all the slams he did 2004-2007 is a sign of weakness, why isnt Djokovic winning 31 matches vs top10 in 2015 a sign of weakness?!?

This is the ultimate cherrypicking.

The most comical part of all of this really. Total contradiction, but they have their own agenda so far up their *** they don't even realize it.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

The most comical part of all of this really. Total contradiction, but they have their own agenda so far up their *** they don't even realize it.

Who ever said Federer winning all slams is a sign of weakness? The problem is who he met.

 

[Jaitock1991]

Who ever said Federer winning all slams is a sign of weakness? The problem is who he met.

Like I said. You don't even realize your own contradiction.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Who ever said Federer winning all slams is a sign of weakness? The problem is who he met.

In terms of level Murray isn't above Lleyton yet you believe he's 10x the player he was.

It really comes down to consistency. He won a lot more and has the better career but you can barely tell them apart in terms of level and even gamestyle when videos are put side by side.

So stop hyping Murray and using him as a "good opponent" if Roddick/Hewitt aren't up to par. Really annoying stuff.

Here's another example.

Spot the difference.

 

[KINGROGER]

Best gem is that peak Fed isn't doing anything on current USO courts lmao. BrokenGears is like 17 years old and has barely watched anything, he wouldn't even know what peak Fed was like.

This is a guy that didn't drop a single set on the way to winning the AO in 2007 which was a pretty slow court. Yet we are to believe he isn't ever winning the USO if he was at his peak lol.

I'm so close to putting this little one on ignore it isn't funny. Really isn't worth a response man.

Was Nadal 2017, Djokovic 2018 level even that high? I’d favour any version of 2004-2010 Federer AO (slower HC) level vs those guys on slower USO. Except maybe 2008.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Was Nadal 2017, Djokovic 2018 level even that high? I’d favour any version of 2004-2010 Federer AO (slower HC) level vs those guys on slower USO. Except maybe 2008.

I think 2018 Djokovic was higher than 2017 Nadal but still he didn't face anything like peak Fed during his USO run or even his Wimbledon run. And nah I don't count 2018 Nadal as anywhere near as good as 2004-2009 Fed at Wimbledon. He'd paint the lines whenever he could, would mix things up and played very aggressively from the back of the court.

I think these guys haven't really seen much outside a few highlight reels when it comes to Fed's earlier days. He was very, very good on slow courts. Only reason he didn't win Roland Garros multiple times was because of Nadal. That's it. Same reason as Djokovic yet he's not disparaged the same way.

 

[KINGROGER]

Then what abt current courts? Why do you have to give Fed so many advantages lmao.

Novak wouldn’t just sit around



I’ve watched plenty peak Fed. I watched him lose several times to Rafa at RG in highlights and I’ve watched a lot of his USO matches. He was a god, but really besides Rafa, he didn’t play any other ATG. You can correct me. I also watched a lot of his matches with Nalbandian, Hewit, and Davy. I watched a lot of his AO matches.

Courts were much faster then as well. Pretending that he would do as well as he did back then rn is a lie.

Which is literally why Fed said in 2008 that the AO courts were extremely slow and that he didn’t like it

There’s a reason why I don’t ignore anyway, I like looking at many opinion as possible. If you want to ignore me, fine

Depends who he plays. Peak Nadal \ Djokovic? It would be a 5 set war but if it’s 2017-2018 versions I’d take peak Fed even on the slower courts.

It depends on the match up. I don’t think Djokovic would match up well with peak Fed who rarely hit many UFE and could hit FH winners from anywhere. Slow HC and some clay yes but on grass and USO I’d go for Fed.

 

[RoddickAce]

Sampras fan logic: Top 10 can't challenge the dominant player = weak era.

Djokovic fan logic: Dominant player beats 10 players often = strong era.

Nadal fan logic: Rafa beats the dominant player often, therefore Rafa faced a tough opponent in his wins = strong era.

Fed fan logic: 20 slams = goat

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Like I said. You don't even realize your own contradiction.

why?

because ''roddick didn't win many slams because of federer''? that's not true, roddick often lost to journeymen, and federer met also worse player than roddick in slam finals/semis such as baghdatis, philippoussis, bjorkman, kiefer...

 

[KINGROGER]

why?

because ''roddick didn't win many slams because of federer''? that's not true, roddick often lost to journeymen, and federer met also worse player than roddick in slam finals/semis such as baghdatis, philippoussis, bjorkman, kiefer...

How many times did Djokovic beat Murray in 4 sets? Or old Federer by the same scoreline. How are those guys any tougher than say Baghdatis who took down like 3-4 top players during his run?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

why?

because ''roddick didn't win many slams because of federer''? that's not true, roddick often lost to journeymen, and federer met also worse player than roddick in slam finals/semis such as baghdatis, philippoussis, bjorkman, kiefer...

Yes because players like Berdych or Tsonga are a whole lot better than them.

 

[BrokenGears]

But then in 2010 Federer won the Australian Open again on a "slow court".

Yes, let's pretend the Australian Open had fast courts in 2007 despite Hewitt complaining year after year that they were too slow at his peak (which was 2001-2005). No. The courts weren't fast.

He'd do well. Federer wasn't even bad on slow courts lol. He had enough time to set up his shots and against anybody not named Djokovic or Nadal during his best years he had virtually no trouble dispatching anybody there.

He played Agassi. I consider Agassi an ATG and if you guys are going to hang onto old man Fed, I'm certainly going to hang onto old man Agassi.

Are you kidding? AO 2010 Fed draw was literally cupcake potato draw.

Why are using Hewitt’s opinion lmao. I’m talking about Federer, not Hewitt. Hewitt’s opinion doesn’t matter in this context.

Yes, old courts were comparatively faster.

Was old man Agassi ATG level?

The most comical part of all of this really. Total contradiction, but they have their own agenda so far up their *** they don't even realize it.

Hypocrisy at its finest in this post

In terms of level Murray isn't above Lleyton yet you believe he's 10x the player he was.

It really comes down to consistency. He won a lot more and has the better career but you can barely tell them apart in terms of level and even gamestyle when videos are put side by side.

So stop hyping Murray and using him as a "good opponent" if Roddick/Hewitt aren't up to par. Really annoying stuff.

Here's another example.

Spot the difference.

2012 Federer was objectively stronger than 2015 Federer and he got destroyed by Murray at Shanghai. Your point?

Hewitt didn’t do **** to Federer after Fed peaked.

I think 2018 Djokovic was higher than 2017 Nadal but still he didn't face anything like peak Fed during his USO run or even his Wimbledon run. And nah I don't count 2018 Nadal as anywhere near as good as 2004-2009 Fed at Wimbledon. He'd paint the lines whenever he could, would mix things up and played very aggressively from the back of the court.

I think these guys haven't really seen much outside a few highlight reels when it comes to Fed's earlier days. He was very, very good on slow courts. Only reason he didn't win Roland Garros multiple times was because of Nadal. That's it. Same reason as Djokovic yet he's not disparaged the same way.

Very, very good huh. Totally why he needed a cupcake draws to win 2/3 AOs he won in this decade and a sped up court

Depends who he plays. Peak Nadal \ Djokovic? It would be a 5 set war but if it’s 2017-2018 versions I’d take peak Fed even on the slower courts.

It depends on the match up. I don’t think Djokovic would match up well with peak Fed who rarely hit many UFE and could hit FH winners from anywhere. Slow HC and some clay yes but on grass and USO I’d go for Fed.

Tell me, if Del Potro couldn’t hit through Novak on 2018 USO courts, how could Fed? Peak Fed isn’t beating Peak Djokovic on slow USO courts. Not happening.

And Wimbledon has slowed down as well. It would be 60-40 Fed on current Wimbledon courts. 2015 Novak would give him more trouble at Wimbledon IMO

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Are you kidding? AO 2010 Fed draw was literally cupcake potato draw.

Why are using Hewitt’s opinion lmao. I’m talking about Federer, not Hewitt. Hewitt’s opinion doesn’t matter in this context.

Yes, old courts were comparatively faster.

Was old man Agassi ATG level?

A cupcake draw lmao... Yet Djokovic's this year at the USO was strong lmao. Keep 'em coming kid.

I mean you were arguing for Murray because it helps your boy but when it comes to Fed? Nah, he's a mug, weak, etc. Lol. Double standards/hypocrisy at its finest.

So why does Federer's opinion and not Hewitt's matter? You don't think Hewitt is an expert at tennis either? Let's see you spend 2 years at No. 1, win a couple of majors and 30 titles. Really mate I'd love to see you do it.

And nope, the Australian Open was never fast. I'd know as well as I was alive and old enough to experience rebound ace. How do you think Gonzalez made the final at the Australian Open in 2007? What, you think he excelled on fast courts or something? He had enough time to set up his shots.

And yeah old man Agassi could produce ATG level tennis on hardcourt at least. Stats and the eye test support this sentiment.

2012 Federer was objectively stronger than 2015 Federer and he got destroyed by Murray at Shanghai. Your point?

Hewitt didn’t do **** to Federer after Fed peaked.

Alright then, old man Hewitt beat Federer at Brisbane in 2014 and even gave him a tough tussle in 2011 when he was ranked outside the top 200.

Murray didn't do **** to Federer in majors whenever he played well.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Very, very good huh. Totally why he needed a cupcake draws to win 2/3 AOs he won in this decade and a sped up court

Since you were born this century and haven't really watched much of him outside highlight reels I don't think you're qualified to even talk about this lmao.

How about he's an old man in tennis terms? Oh right. He never ages according to you guys and he's at his peak today.

Keep 'em coming. I'm going to throw up from so much laughter.

 

[BrokenGears]

A cupcake draw lmao... Yet Djokovic's this year at the USO was strong lmao. Keep 'em coming kid.

I mean you were arguing for Murray because it helps your boy but when it comes to Fed? Nah, he's a mug, weak, etc. Lol. Double standards/hypocrisy at its finest.

So why does Federer's opinion and not Hewitt's matter? You don't think Hewitt is an expert at tennis either? Let's see you spend 2 years at No. 1, win a couple of majors and 30 titles. Really mate I'd love to see you do it.

And nope, the Australian Open was never fast. I'd know as well as I was alive and old enough to experience rebound ace. How do you think Gonzalez made the final at the Australian Open in 2007? What, you think he excelled on fast courts or something? He had enough time to set up his shots.

And yeah old man Agassi could produce ATG level tennis on hardcourt at least. Stats and the eye test support this sentiment.



Alright then, old man Hewitt beat Federer at Brisbane in 2014 and even gave him a tough tussle in 2011 when he was ranked outside the top 200.

Murray didn't do **** to Federer in majors whenever he played well.

Lmao, now why are you bringing Djoko USO draw into this? BTW, yes Djoko USO draw was weak.

Yes because Murray is very underrated and undervalued on this forum.

No, because we’re talking about Fed’s opinion on the courts. I’m pretty sure they’re are plenty of people who think the current USO courts are very fast. Fed’s opinion matters more in this context, not Hewitt because we are talking about Fed.

It was faster comparatively.

Murray literally led v Federer in their first 8 matches. How can you compare Fed v Hewitt to Fed v Murray