Slam finals and semifinals between ATGs

  • Thread starter Deleted member 757377
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Screenshot_20180703-125901.png

LOL

@Lew - thanks for the update.

Your list of people being ignored might end up being more impressive than Fed's tennis career at the end of all this.

Now come on, you know I have absolutely no issue with your stats based approach but in which universe is consistency to reach the latter ends of tournaments a bad thing? Maybe that wasn't even the point of this thread, you're putting the numbers up here and asking people to arrive at their own conclusions.

Here's mine:

Fed isn't the best big time match player. If chips were down and we needed to pick one player and only that one player in one match to save humanity I'd go with Nadal.

Federer for the war, Nadal for the battle and Djokovic for trenches.

All needed to win Stalingrad.
 

JackGates

Legend
LOL

@Lew - thanks for the update.

Your list of people being ignored might end up being more impressive than Fed's tennis career at the end of all this.

Now come on, you know I have absolutely no issue with your stats based approach but in which universe is consistency to reach the latter ends of tournaments a bad thing? Maybe that wasn't even the point of this thread, you're putting the numbers up here and asking people to arrive at their own conclusions.

Here's mine:

Fed isn't the best big time match player. If chips were down and we needed to pick one player and only that one player in one match to save humanity I'd go with Nadal.

Federer for the war, Nadal for the battle and Djokovic for trenches.

All needed to win Stalingrad.
Yes, but it's irrelevant, since tennis is not a battle it's a war. It's a fallacy. If the humanity is based on one battle, this is just a hypothetical scenario. But here in reality, humanity is actually based on who wins the war.

Also, if Federer knew the humanity would be on the line and that the goal of his career is the h2h, he would probably be totally different player and would change his tactics.
See, this is the problem with what if scenarios. People just assume, Federer is static and would just be the same player even when conditions change.

Isn't WTF the proof? Where you actually have to win the h2h battles with top 8 players? And Federer changes his tactics to achieve that.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
ne:

Fed isn't the best big time match player. If chips were down and we needed to pick one player and only that one player in one match to save humanity I'd go with Nadal.

Federer won more Slam finals aka the biggest matches than anyone else. The proper term would be 'close match player'. Federer is more likely to overwhelm opposition than Djokovic or Nadal off clay, in which case the chinks in his mental armour don't matter. But if the match is fought on even terms, then, true, Nadal and Djokovic deal with that better than Federer does at their respective bests.

If we're talking peak versions, on clay Nadal is the instant choice, but elsewhere one or both of Federer and Djokovic are above him for sheer level difference.
 

JackGates

Legend
Federer won more Slam finals aka the biggest matches than anyone else. The proper term would be 'close match player'. Federer is more likely to overwhelm opposition than Djokovic or Nadal off clay, in which case the chinks in his mental armour don't matter. But if the match is fought on even terms, then, true, Nadal and Djokovic deal with that better than Federer does at their respective bests.

If we're talking peak versions, on clay Nadal is the instant choice, but elsewhere one or both of Federer and Djokovic are above him for sheer level difference.
Yeah, people just subjectively try to define what "big match player" means. Entire war is one big match, so Federer is the best big match player.
Also, why don't all slam matches count as big matches? Why is Rosol versus Nadal not a big match? Rosol cost Rafa chances to win a major, so surely it was a huge match.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
LOL

@Lew - thanks for the update.

Your list of people being ignored might end up being more impressive than Fed's tennis career at the end of all this.

Now come on, you know I have absolutely no issue with your stats based approach but in which universe is consistency to reach the latter ends of tournaments a bad thing? Maybe that wasn't even the point of this thread, you're putting the numbers up here and asking people to arrive at their own conclusions.

Here's mine:

Fed isn't the best big time match player. If chips were down and we needed to pick one player and only that one player in one match to save humanity I'd go with Nadal.

Federer for the war, Nadal for the battle and Djokovic for trenches.

All needed to win Stalingrad.

All matches are big matches in single elimination tournaments.
 

Jonas78

Legend
Why is It worse to lose to Nadal at FO or Djokodal in your thirties, than not reaching QF's at one certain slam 6 years In a row (Nadal), or not reaching the SF In any slam in 6 straight slams (Djoker)?
 

buscemi

Legend
I'm going to ignore the obvious trolling purpose of this thread, and state how impressed I am with Edberg's percentage, in a strong era.

Unless my math is wrong, Edberg is 10-8 [Edit: 11-7], not 8-3 (I haven't checked the numbers for other players).

1985 Australian Open: beat Lendl & Wilander (2-0)
1986 U.S. Open: lost to Lendl (0-1)
1987 Wimbledon: lost to Lendl (0-1)
1987 U.S. Open: lost to Wilander (0-1)
1988 Australian Open: lost to Wilander (0-1)
1988 Wimbledon: beat Becker (1-0)
1989 French Open: beat Becker (1-0)
1989 Wimbledon: beat McEnroe; lost to Becker (1-1)
1990 Australian Open: beat Wilander; lost to Lendl (1-1)
1990 Wimbledon: beat Lendl; beat Becker (2-0)
1991 Australian Open: lost to Lendl (0-1)
1991 U.S. Open: beat Lendl (0-1) [Edit: 1-0]
1992 U.S. Open:
beat Sampras (1-0)
1993 Australian Open: beat Sampras (1-0)​
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Yes, but it's irrelevant, since tennis is not a battle it's a war. It's a fallacy. If the humanity is based on one battle, this is just a hypothetical scenario. But here in reality, humanity is actually based on who wins the war.

Also, if Federer knew the humanity would be on the line and that the goal of his career is the h2h, he would probably be totally different player and would change his tactics.
See, this is the problem with what if scenarios. People just assume, Federer is static and would just be the same player even when conditions change.

Isn't WTF the proof? Where you actually have to win the h2h battles with top 8 players? And Federer changes his tactics to achieve that.
Federer won more Slam finals aka the biggest matches than anyone else. The proper term would be 'close match player'. Federer is more likely to overwhelm opposition than Djokovic or Nadal off clay, in which case the chinks in his mental armour don't matter. But if the match is fought on even terms, then, true, Nadal and Djokovic deal with that better than Federer does at their respective bests.

If we're talking peak versions, on clay Nadal is the instant choice, but elsewhere one or both of Federer and Djokovic are above him for sheer level difference.
All matches are big matches in single elimination tournaments.

Perhaps there was a bit of misunderstanding. Fed has won the most slams/semis etc, but he’s also lost the most ones.

This was the original point of the OP.

All he did was put up some stats, making no statement on how people should interpret them.

At my end my original response might be better put like this:

At the beginning of a tournament whom would I bet on to go deepest? The answer is Fed. Followed by Djokovic.

In a final which player would I bet to win? The answer is Nadal.

People give @Lew a tough time for his posts, in this thread all he’s done is put up stats.

To me he is an extremely thorough poster.
 

Jonas78

Legend
Perhaps there was a bit of misunderstanding. Fed has won the most slams/semis etc, but he’s also lost the most ones.

This was the original point of the OP.

All he did was put up some stats, making no statement on how people should interpret them.

At my end my original response might be better put like this:

At the beginning of a tournament whom would I bet on to go deepest? The answer is Fed. Followed by Djokovic.

In a final which player would I bet to win? The answer is Nadal.

People give @Lew a tough time for his posts, in this thread all he’s done is put up stats.

To me he is an extremely thorough poster.
You would bet on Rafa defeating Djokovic outside clay In a slam final 2011-2016??
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
In how many of those was Federer 29+ years old?

14 out of 27 = more than 50%

Before that he won 80% of his Slam matches vs Djokovic (all but one of them in straight sets)
And faced Nadal 4 times on Nadal's best surface, 3 times on Nadal's 2nd best surface and once on Nadal's 3rd best surface so totally fair.

For Djokovic - 0 after his 29th birthday so far
For Nadal - 1 after his 29th birthday so far

Can't lose to an ATG in a SF/F when you suck past your prime, no?
Lew will just ignore you when he can't counter your arguments.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Perhaps there was a bit of misunderstanding. Fed has won the most slams/semis etc, but he’s also lost the most ones.

This was the original point of the OP.

All he did was put up some stats, making no statement on how people should interpret them.

At my end my original response might be better put like this:

At the beginning of a tournament whom would I bet on to go deepest? The answer is Fed. Followed by Djokovic.

In a final which player would I bet to win? The answer is Nadal.

People give @Lew a tough time for his posts, in this thread all he’s done is put up stats.

To me he is an extremely thorough poster.

Re: The bolded, I would bet depending on the surface, even if it's a final. So in essence, I would bet Fed on grass and most HCs, Djoker on the rest of the HCs and Nadal on clay.

Which leaves Federer the best "overall" pick.

And Lew has a clear agenda to misuse stats in order to diminish Federer. He doesn't really try to hide it. He goes on and on about weak eras too.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
You would bet on Rafa defeating Djokovic outside clay In a slam final 2011-2016??

So many clauses and sub clauses, peak, prime, surfaces etc, which is why I try not to indulge on subjective type conversations.

As a general reflection on their careers thus far I’d go with Rafa in a final.

Fed/Novak to get more consistently there.

Well Novak until his crazy downswing after FO 2016. He hasn’t really looked anything like the player he used to be for some time.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Re: The bolded, I would bet depending on the surface, even if it's a final. So in essence, I would bet Fed on grass and most HCs, Djoker on the rest of the HCs and Nadal on clay.

Which leaves Federer the best "overall" pick.

And Lew has a clear agenda to misuse stats in order to diminish Federer. He doesn't really try to hide it. He goes on and on about weak eras too.

His biases don’t change the stats he puts up. He’s good about supporting his bias so the counter needs to also involve certain completeness.

I find his method of arguing for his biases better than most people’s around here. They might be cherry picked, but which stats aren’t?
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Unless my math is wrong, Edberg is 10-8, not 8-3 (I haven't checked the numbers for other players).
1985 Australian Open: beat Lendl & Wilander (2-0)
1986 U.S. Open: lost to Lendl (0-1)
1987 Wimbledon: lost to Lendl (0-1)
1987 U.S. Open: lost to Wilander (0-1)
1988 Australian Open: lost to Wilander (0-1)
1988 Wimbledon: beat Becker (1-0)
1989 French Open: beat Becker (1-0)
1989 Wimbledon: beat McEnroe; lost to Becker (1-1)
1990 Australian Open: beat Wilander; lost to Lendl (1-1)
1990 Wimbledon: beat Lendl; beat Becker (2-0)
1991 Australian Open: lost to Lendl (0-1)
1991 U.S. Open: beat Lendl (1-0)
1992 U.S. Open: beat Sampras (1-0)
1993 Australian Open: beat Sampras (1-0)​

11-7 (you had 0-1 for 1991 USO).

Poorly chosen stat anyway - losing early is better than losing to an ATG, and beating an ATG but still losing to someone else (here: RG 89, AO 93) is better than winning without facing an ATG.

Edberg's consistency is underrated, though: made every AO semi in 1985-94 (except '89 QF w/o), every Wimbledon semi in 1986-93 (except '92 when he lost QF to Ivanisevic in 5), every YEC semi in 1986-90 (was handed brutal groups in 92-94, together with Sampras and Becker/Ivanisevic).
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
His biases don’t change the stats he puts up. He’s good about supporting his bias so the counter needs to also involve certain completeness.

I find his method of arguing for his biases better than most people’s around here. They might be cherry picked, but which stats aren’t?

Titles, finals, semis. Great players play to win, so results are all that matters in the end.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Titles, finals, semis. Great players play to win, so results are all that matters in the end.

Which titles, which semis, which finals?

If Nadal wins another 10 French Opens you can be absolutely certain few in here would go by the above simple metric.

Everyone in the end will choose stats to best support their assertions. @Lew is no different, if anything he’s thorough about it.
 

JackGates

Legend
Perhaps there was a bit of misunderstanding. Fed has won the most slams/semis etc, but he’s also lost the most ones.

This was the original point of the OP.

All he did was put up some stats, making no statement on how people should interpret them.

At my end my original response might be better put like this:

At the beginning of a tournament whom would I bet on to go deepest? The answer is Fed. Followed by Djokovic.

In a final which player would I bet to win? The answer is Nadal.

People give @Lew a tough time for his posts, in this thread all he’s done is put up stats.

To me he is an extremely thorough poster.
You would have to be crazy to put Nadal over Federer in non clay finals versus the field. Rafa is 5-7 in non clay GS finals, Federer is 19-5. LOL.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
You would have to be crazy to put Nadal over Federer in non clay finals versus the field. Rafa is 5-7 in non clay GS finals, Federer is 19-5. LOL.

So many clauses and sub clauses, peak, prime, surfaces etc, which is why I try not to indulge on subjective type conversations.

As a general reflection on their careers thus far I’d go with Rafa in a final.

Fed/Novak to get more consistently there.

Well Novak until his crazy downswing after FO 2016. He hasn’t really looked anything like the player he used to be for some time.
 

buscemi

Legend
11-7 (you had 0-1 for 1991 USO).

Poorly chosen stat anyway - losing early is better than losing to an ATG, and beating an ATG but still losing to someone else (here: RG 89, AO 93) is better than winning without facing an ATG.

Edberg's consistency is underrated, though: made every AO semi in 1985-94 (except '89 QF w/o), every Wimbledon semi in 1986-93 (except '92 when he lost QF to Ivanisevic in 5), every YEC semi in 1986-90 (was handed brutal groups in 92-94, together with Sampras and Becker/Ivanisevic).

Right. 11-7. I had Edberg beating Lendl, but entered it as 0-1 instead of 1-0, so it should be 11-7, not 10-8.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
You would have to be crazy to put Nadal over Federer in non clay finals versus the field. Rafa is 5-7 in non clay GS finals, Federer is 19-5. LOL.

Nadal has 6 slams off clay so that stat can't be right. 1 AO, 2 WIM and 3 USO.

However yes, he does have a losing record in slam finals in two out of 4 slams, 1-3 at AO and 2-3 at Wimbledon.
 

JackGates

Legend
Nadal has 6 slams off clay so that stat can't be right. 1 AO, 2 WIM and 3 USO.

However yes, he does have a losing record in slam finals in two out of 4 slams, 1-3 at AO and 2-3 at Wimbledon.
He has a losing h2h in non clay GS finals, but Fed is 19-5, so why would people pick Nadal in such a case over Federer, especially versus the field?
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
He has a losing h2h in non clay GS finals, but Fed is 19-5, so why would people pick Nadal in such a case over Federer, especially versus the field?

I wouldn't. In an often used "Play for you life" hypothetical I'd pick Sampras or Fed.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
His biases don’t change the stats he puts up. He’s good about supporting his bias so the counter needs to also involve certain completeness.

I find his method of arguing for his biases better than most people’s around here. They might be cherry picked, but which stats aren’t?

Unless you just completely ignore the fact that his stats are wrong, I guess.

Look at this for instance

Unless my math is wrong, Edberg is 10-8, not 8-3 (I haven't checked the numbers for other players).

1985 Australian Open: beat Lendl & Wilander (2-0)
1986 U.S. Open: lost to Lendl (0-1)
1987 Wimbledon: lost to Lendl (0-1)
1987 U.S. Open: lost to Wilander (0-1)
1988 Australian Open: lost to Wilander (0-1)
1988 Wimbledon: beat Becker (1-0)
1989 French Open: beat Becker (1-0)
1989 Wimbledon: beat McEnroe; lost to Becker (1-1)
1990 Australian Open: beat Wilander; lost to Lendl (1-1)
1990 Wimbledon: beat Lendl; beat Becker (2-0)
1991 Australian Open: lost to Lendl (0-1)
1991 U.S. Open: beat Lendl (0-1)
1992 U.S. Open: beat Sampras (1-0)
1993 Australian Open: beat Sampras (1-0)​

Apparently, Edberg is 10-8 (or 11-7 as @AnOctorokForDinner pointed out) and not 8-3.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Which titles, which semis, which finals?

If Nadal wins another 10 French Opens you can be absolutely certain few in here would go by the above simple metric.

Everyone in the end will choose stats to best support their assertions. @Lew is no different, if anything he’s thorough about it.

Major > YEC >= Olympics > Masters

If Nadal somehow manages to surpass Federer in major titles and have a 12+ lead in masters (or 10+ with a YEC title), he's goat then, sad but true.
 

TJfederer16

Hall of Fame
H2h between ATGs of the Open Era in slam finals and semifinals:

(federer, nadal, djokovic, agassi, sampras, becker, edberg, wilander, connors, mcenroe, lendl, borg)


Most matches played:

Federer 27
Connors, Lendl, Djokovic 25
McEnroe 24
Nadal 23
Agassi 17
Becker 16
Wilander 15
Borg 13
Edberg, Sampras 11


Highest winning percentage:

Nadal 17-6 (73.9%)
Edberg 8-3 (72.7%)
Sampras 7-4 (63.6%)
Wilander 9-6 (60%)
Borg 7-6 (53.8%)
McEnroe 12-12 (50%)
Djokovic 12-13 (48%)
Lendl 11-14 (44%)
Becker 7-9 (43.75%)
Connors 9-14 (39.1%)
Agassi 6-11 (35.3%)
Federer 9-18 (33.3%)

you really can't get over the fact that Roger is the greatest can you? It must really keep you up at night, sifting through the statistics, desperately trying to find the illusive few that don't point towards Roger being the greatest. I'd suggest going to a psychiatrist to find a coping mechanism to stop yourself trying to prove Rafa is the greatest. Perhaps go and write down the few statistics that Rafa has over Roger and write them on your bedroom wall then when you see a thread about Roger's greatness and get angry, go to your bedroom and read the statistics over and over again until you forget about it.
 

JackGates

Legend
I wouldn't. In an often used "Play for you life" hypothetical I'd pick Sampras or Fed.
I would pick Fed. Fed at his peak was undefeated in GS non clay finals. Pete lost USO and AO finals in his peak, I think.
Fed also won his first non clay GS final. Rafa and Djokovic both lost their first non clay GS finals. But when Fed played an all time great in slams Agassi or Pete the first time, he prevailed.

Fed's mentality is underrated, because you compare peak Djokodal versus past peak Federer, so I think it's skewed a bit. Fed in 2005 was mentally on a different level, plus physically he would know same age players can't compete, so he could even physically go toe to toe with Djokovic and Nadal.

Actually peak Fed played a lot more matches than peak Djokodal, they never were able to play almost 100 matches like peak Federer, so this means that peak Fed might have the same fitness as them in their primes. I would go pre mono Federer for my life :)
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Unless you just completely ignore the fact that his stats are wrong, I guess.

Look at this for instance



Apparently, Edberg is 10-8 (or 11-7 as @AnOctorokForDinner pointed out) and not 8-3.

LOL

Thanks for pointing it out. Yes, absolutely, a complete stat based approach lives and dies by the correctness of those stats.

@Lew will need to clean up the stats, I’m quite sure he will. He seems to take a degree of pride in his information.

Major > YEC >= Olympics > Masters

If Nadal somehow manages to surpass Federer in major titles and have a 12+ lead in masters (or 10+ with a YEC title), he's goat then, sad but true.

This one is extremely subjective.

I can relate to why you’d evaluate the importance of each in this order but it is subjective. Many would have a different view.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
This one is extremely subjective.

I can relate to why you’d evaluate the importance of each in this order but it is subjective. Many would have a different view.

No they wouldn't. Only Masters and Olympics might be switched around. For anyone that knows anything about tennis the top 2 are Majors at a clear cut #1 and then the YECs.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
No they wouldn't. Only Masters and Olympics might be switched around. For anyone that knows anything about tennis the top 2 are Majors at a clear cut #1 and then the YECs.

I like to believe I have some views on tennis that I’ve halfway thought about.

My order would be Majors > Masters > YE > Olympics.

The difference is no big deal though, after all that’s what makes it subjective.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I like to believe I have some views on tennis that I’ve halfway thought about.

My order would be Majors > Masters > YE > Olympics.

The difference is no big deal though, after all that’s what makes it subjective.

Is the YEC now or throughout history? Because the YEC was once the 4th biggest event on the calendar. Of course in the late 80's Miami was considered the 5th Major likewise Rome has been considered huge in the past.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Safe to say, you'd be in the large minority putting Masters ahead of the YECs.

Whoops. My bad. I thought it originally meant YE#1.

Yep, I’m with the majority too:

Majors > WTF > Masters > Olympics.

The only niggle is the post that follows yours. We have a genuine problem because the importance of events hasn’t been consistent through eras. Borg hardly bothered even with the AO.

It’s a big niggle.

Is the YEC now or throughout history? Because the YEC was once the 4th biggest event on the calendar. Of course in the late 80's Miami was considered the 5th Major likewise Rome has been considered huge in the past.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Whoops. My bad. I thought it originally meant YE#1.

Yep, I’m with the majority too:

Majors > WTF > Masters > Olympics.

The only niggle is the post that follows yours. We have a genuine problem because the importance of events hasn’t been consistent through eras. Borg hardly bothered even with the AO.

It’s a big niggle.

Indeed Borg attended it just the once. Probably would have had 14+ slams if he made the journey frequently, I do count his YEC wins as majors though personally.

So is a YE #1 below even one masters to you? Or is it more like Nadal's 32 Masters is a more impressive than Sampras' 6 YE #1's? Do you prefer the weeks stat or does time at #1 just not matter to you in general?
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Indeed Borg attended it just the once. Probably would have had 14+ slams if he made the journey frequently, I do count his YEC wins as majors though personally.

So is a YE #1 below even one masters to you? Or is it more like Nadal's 32 Masters is a more impressive than Sampras' 6 YE #1's? Do you prefer the weeks stat or does time at #1 just not matter to you in general?

This might not be an answer but it’s the best one I’ve got:

Somewhere around 2015 when I just couldn’t take anymore Fed losses I began to notice better how he played and things improved for me. Better yet, I began to notice all the players too.

It really doesn’t matter to me where Fed/Nadal etc end up in anyone’s else’s mind. Fed is the favourite in mine, and no amount of successes of anybody else is going to dislodge me from my extreme bias.

Heck, Nadal or someone else might even be the better player and Fed will still the best tennis player in my view.

It goes well beyond stats.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
LOL

Thanks for pointing it out. Yes, absolutely, a complete stat based approach lives and dies by the correctness of those stats.

@Lew will need to clean up the stats, I’m quite sure he will. He seems to take a degree of pride in his information.



This one is extremely subjective.

I can relate to why you’d evaluate the importance of each in this order but it is subjective. Many would have a different view.

That order is supported by tour structure. Any other would be illogical. Now, how big the > differential exactly is is of course subjective judgment, though atp points give ua a rough guideline.
Of course, that holds true for the modern era; comparing across different eras is another matter.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
That order is supported by tour structure. Any other would be illogical. Now, how big the > differential exactly is is of course subjective judgment, though atp points give ua a rough guideline.
Been cleared up:
Whoops. My bad. I thought it originally meant YE#1.

Yep, I’m with the majority too:

Majors > WTF > Masters > Olympics.


The only niggle is the post that follows yours. We have a genuine problem because the importance of events hasn’t been consistent through eras. Borg hardly bothered even with the AO.

It’s a big niggle.
 

Jonas78

Legend
So many clauses and sub clauses, peak, prime, surfaces etc, which is why I try not to indulge on subjective type conversations.

As a general reflection on their careers thus far I’d go with Rafa in a final.

Fed/Novak to get more consistently there.

Well Novak until his crazy downswing after FO 2016. He hasn’t really looked anything like the player he used to be for some time.
Yes it's way too complicated. I would go with Rafa any day on clay, but not on grass.

You are mentioning an important point though, who would you bet on going deepest? This is the big weakness In @Lew 's stats. Take AO16 for example. Fed lost to peak Djoker In the final, Nadal lost R1 to Verdasco. So according to the stats In this thread It is better to lose R1 to a noone than to peak Djoker In a final? o_O. This example shows just how meaningless It is to present stats this way.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
LOL

@Lew - thanks for the update.

Your list of people being ignored might end up being more impressive than Fed's tennis career at the end of all this.

Now come on, you know I have absolutely no issue with your stats based approach but in which universe is consistency to reach the latter ends of tournaments a bad thing? Maybe that wasn't even the point of this thread, you're putting the numbers up here and asking people to arrive at their own conclusions.

Here's mine:

Fed isn't the best big time match player. If chips were down and we needed to pick one player and only that one player in one match to save humanity I'd go with Nadal.

Federer for the war, Nadal for the battle and Djokovic for trenches.

All needed to win Stalingrad.
Against most the field and guys that aren't top tier ATGs when Federer is in his 30s sure I'd pick Nadal over him. But I haven't seen anybody as dominant against the field as Federer was in years like 2004/2005/2006.
 
Against most the field and guys that aren't top tier ATGs when Federer is in his 30s sure I'd pick Nadal over him. But I haven't seen anybody as dominant against the field as Federer was in years like 2004/2005/2006.
Against the field consisted of Davydenko, Blake, Robredo, Ljubicic, Roddick and Kiefer.
Even my local butcher after one month of conditioning will be dominant against those guys...;)
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Against the field consisted of Davydenko, Blake, Robredo, Ljubicic, Roddick and Kiefer.
Even my local butcher after one month of conditioning will be dominant against those guys...;)
>Davydenko with a winning record on HC against Nadal lmao.
>Blake who has beaten Nadal in a couple of big matches lmao.
>Robredo lmfao..
>Ljubicic again lmfao...
>Roddick being underrated again lol.. guy belongs more with Hewitt and Murray than half those mugs you described.

Guess you just picked the ranking history for 2006 or something.

But in 2004 the top 5 consisted of all former or current No. 1s and all were slam winners.
 
Top