CentreCourt
Rookie
Federer and Del Potro
Bionic Poster
TennisATP had the entire website on ignore, so he literally would talk to himself on here.
Federer and Del Potro
Bionic Poster
CentreCourt
Rookie
Here's the issue with this logic - if someone is as dominant as Federer, the other guys can't possibly become ATGs. So you have a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby guys who are insanely dominant at their peak (ie the three guys listed at the bottom for example) don't get the credit they deserve. Effectively they need to come up against someone who is no longer at their peak for it to count in their favour, which means you're basically giving credit for substandard results.
Andy Roddick, as a prime example, might be on your ATG list in terms of slam titles if peak Federer didn't exist. But he did. An example for Borg might be someone like Vilas.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Nadl
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
I agree, in fact I would have preferred a different criteria: percentage of wins in grand slams.
These are the best, all at 79+%:
borg, nadal, federer, djokovic, sampras, connors, lendl, mcenroe, murray, agassi, becker, wilander, edberg.
others like courier, vilas and roddick (and tsonga) are much lower, around 74-75%.
So you can see the only one missing would be Murray.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
I will add Murray, and Rosewall/Newcombe (relevant ATGs in the '70s grand slams) to Connor's results:
Nadal 22-7 (75.9%)
Sampras 7-4 (63.6%)
Edberg 11-7 (61.1%)
Wilander 9-6 (60%)
Djokovic 19-15 (55.9%)
Borg 7-6 (53.8%)
McEnroe 12-12 (50%)
Lendl 11-14 (44%)
Becker 7-9 (43.75%)
Connors 11-15 (42.3%)
Federer 13-19 (40.6%)
Agassi 6-11 (35.3%)
Murray 4-16 (20%)
Nadal 22-7 (75.9%)
Sampras 7-4 (63.6%)
Edberg 11-7 (61.1%)
Wilander 9-6 (60%)
Djokovic 19-15 (55.9%)
Borg 7-6 (53.8%)
McEnroe 12-12 (50%)
Lendl 11-14 (44%)
Becker 7-9 (43.75%)
Connors 11-15 (42.3%)
Federer 13-19 (40.6%)
Agassi 6-11 (35.3%)
Murray 4-16 (20%)
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
You shouldn't add Murray as, clearly, he is not an ATG.
I explained what I mean with ATG. If someone disagrees, make his own list.
@Lew
You have never answered me on this one;
How is your losing % vs other Big3 in SF/F relevant, and not how deep you run in a given tournament? A few examples:
Wimbledon 14: Federer loses final to Djokovic, Nadal loses R4 to Kyrgios
Wimbledon15: Fed F loses to Djoker, Rafa loses R2 to Brown
USO15: Fed loses final to Djoker, Rafa loses R3 to the Fog.
AO16: Fed lose final to Djoker, Rafa loses R1 to Verdasco.
So this gives a 100% (4 out of 4) lose to Fed vs Djokodal, while It gives a 0% lose (0 out of 4) to Nadal vs Djokerer.
Dont you see how ridiculous this is, that the one reaching 4 finals vs peak Djoker is the "statistical Mug", while the one losing R4, R2, R3, R1 doesnt get any statistical "punishment"?? This is not meant to get at Rafa or his fans, it's just an example to show that you can't use stats this way. The only reason Nads Isn’t 4/4 loss in these tournaments is that he didnt reach far enough.
You have never answered me on this one;
How is your losing % vs other Big3 in SF/F relevant, and not how deep you run in a given tournament? A few examples:
Wimbledon 14: Federer loses final to Djokovic, Nadal loses R4 to Kyrgios
Wimbledon15: Fed F loses to Djoker, Rafa loses R2 to Brown
USO15: Fed loses final to Djoker, Rafa loses R3 to the Fog.
AO16: Fed lose final to Djoker, Rafa loses R1 to Verdasco.
So this gives a 100% (4 out of 4) lose to Fed vs Djokodal, while It gives a 0% lose (0 out of 4) to Nadal vs Djokerer.
Dont you see how ridiculous this is, that the one reaching 4 finals vs peak Djoker is the "statistical Mug", while the one losing R4, R2, R3, R1 doesnt get any statistical "punishment"?? This is not meant to get at Rafa or his fans, it's just an example to show that you can't use stats this way. The only reason Nads Isn’t 4/4 loss in these tournaments is that he didnt reach far enough.
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
As we can see, Djokovic is the player who met the most ATGs (or players with 79+% of GS wins) in finals and semifinals:
Djokovic 34
Federer 32
Nadal 29
Connors 26
Lendl 25
McEnroe 24
Murray 20
Edberg 18
Agassi 17
Becker 16
Wilander 15
Borg 13
Sampras 11
Look at the difference between the big3 and Borg/Sampras.
Djokovic 34
Federer 32
Nadal 29
Connors 26
Lendl 25
McEnroe 24
Murray 20
Edberg 18
Agassi 17
Becker 16
Wilander 15
Borg 13
Sampras 11
Look at the difference between the big3 and Borg/Sampras.
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
The stat is more about how tough your career or your wins were, not about consistency or the overall level of a player.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
If they lost often to mugs they wouldn't be in this list, since it takes into account only players with about 80+% of wins in grand slams.
Raining hopes
Hall of Fame
@Lew researches all the stats, simple minded people get swayed by it.I have absolutely nothing against Nadal even if I support Federer ,have always genuinely believed that all three are equals more or less.
But I simply don't think numbers can ever change what I have seen from my own eyes and have actually revisited it since
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Except it isn't. At all. First of all, because you cherry-picked the stats, as usual. Also, as several of us have pointed out, this actually *penalizes* the most dominant players. "You didn't let your rivals win enough to become ATG's? Tough for you, we'll count your wins as if they were against journeymen, then."
And finally, the four examples listed by Jonas78 show another flaw in your logic. These four grand slams:
- give four "bad marks" to Federer because he lost to Djokovic in the later stages of the tournaments while 33-34 year-old
- give four "good marks" to Djokovic for beating an old ATG, *as he should have*. An ATG at the top of his game has no business losing to someone who is closer to retirement than to his heyday. If he does lose, then he's not doing his job.
- give four "no marks" to Nadal for losing to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
So, Nadal is not penalized for playing so bad that he couldn't even reach the second week, Djokovic gets a huge boost for taking advantage of four gimmes, and Federer is penalized for reaching the semi or final in each of these and losing to the dominant ATG. So, Nadal has awful results, gets a 0. Djokovic does his job (ie nothing special), gets a +4. Fed reaches the latter stages of all these tournaments and makes it competitive vs Djokovic (admitedly, the most impressive feat of the three, considering his age), gets a -4.
So, these stats are just trivia, not about "how tough your career or wins were".
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
As I said, I took as a criteria the winning percentage. Roddick and company are nowhere near the players I mentioned in any stat.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
wins over top-10s:
Santoro 40
Lopez 38
Roddick 37
It was not because of Federer if players like Roddick were not ATGs. He's lucky he reached 5 slam finals.
Santoro 40
Lopez 38
Roddick 37
It was not because of Federer if players like Roddick were not ATGs. He's lucky he reached 5 slam finals.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bender
G.O.A.T.
Definitely the worst GOAT ever
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
D
Deleted member 742196
Guest
One thing I really like and appreciate about @Lew is he shoves stats in the face of people that go on endlessly using them to support their assertions.
Basically, if you can’t find a way to disagree with @Lew ’s stats then stop using stats to support your biases.
Just say you like whomever player, as you’ve just done, because of reasons you’ve arrived at.
It’s much more honest, and frankly flattering, to your favourite.
Raining hopes
Hall of Fame
Actually window of proper argumentative opposition to @Lew's stats exist and I have debated several times with him.I stopped because lately he didn't give any proper reply even if I write a long post.
Ex. He went around parading superiority of Nadal 2017-18 on clay over 2005-07 saying the former is much better.
I asserted the opposite.He dismissed my "opinionion".Asked for stats
So I,who did not know anything about statistics sites, went on found stats which supported my stand(majority of overall stats there indicated that at least on basis of stats I an right)
Wrote a bit about how 2005-07 could only be slightly worse than 2017-18
His reply for all my pains:
Players getting same type of results in latter stages of career are better relative to past.
He said it was his belief.Well my beliefs are opinions which even if somehow backed by stats can not be true.His are Supreme.No?
D
Deleted member 742196
Guest
LOL
Pity. Can understand what you mean, he often gets dragged into murky waters the good conversations sometimes end up being missed out.
I do think if more people around here weren't as offensive and rude he might be a good person to have nice tennis banter with.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Worst 1HBH player to win 15+ slams, worst ever male Swiss #1 etc. the list goes on, the guy's just an disgrace to tennis.
Lew is great, but the problem is, he is so close minded. He just doesn't want to concede an inch or compromise anything, he won't concede nothing, so what's the point, you can't have normal discussions.
If a person isn't willing to accept that he might be wrong, those discussions won't go anywhere.
Raining hopes
Hall of Fame
Now this is what I wanted to say.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
zagor
Bionic Poster
Because he (still) leads them in slam count. That is the stat that whether one likes it or not (I personally don't) overrides everything else.
Almost any tennis fan knows slam counts of other ATGs by heart, stuff like H2Hs, wins over top 10 players, winning % etc. you have to read to remember them (before soon forgetting them again).
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
Djokovic from UO 10 to RG 16 (11 slam titles) met 27 ATGs in slam finals or semifinals (1.17 per tournament).
Federer from WI 03 to AO 07 (10 slam titles) met 4 ATGs in slam finals or semifinals (0.27 per tournament).
Federer from WI 03 to AO 07 (10 slam titles) met 4 ATGs in slam finals or semifinals (0.27 per tournament).
TheAssassin
G.O.A.T.
So Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Becker and Edberg were all some average players?
I am sure the field where Nadal swept Roland Garros without problem and Federer did something similar for the rest had more depth than that.
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
Different eras, but the big4 set the bar higher. Just compare the money they make.So Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Becker and Edberg were all some average players?
Raining hopes
Hall of Fame
Ok, if you swap eras and you put Fedal in the 80, then Connors and Wilander will have 3 majors and guys like Murray, Wawrinka would have 6 majors.So Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Becker and Edberg were all some average players?
Not to mention that a lot more pros are playing tennis today, so the depth is even greater.
Also, why do Djokovic and Federer count as an all time greats on clay? If Murray with 2 Wimbledon titles doesn't count as an all time great, then surely Fed and Nole with 1 RG title can't count as all time greats.
Eren
Professional
Tsonga 2008 vs. Prime Nadal was absolutely unreal. I mean what was the score? Something like 6-2 6-3 6-2? He only let him win 7 games on a hardcourt (where it's easier to hold serve than on clay imo as the returner gets a little less time to return).
Yeah, Federer has that serve and variety, so there is no way that lower guys can dominate him like that. Even if parts of his game are giving him problems, he just changes or relies on serve to survive such scares.
But when Rafa's forehand stops working game over, he gets blown away.
Raining hopes
Hall of Fame
What about his performance in 2011 Wimbledon ?or Verdasco going beyond his limits in 2009,Cilic in 2014 and Wawa for all his slams.B berdych in 2010 WB and Davydenko's 2009 end stretch?Not to mention Soderling,Stak,Rosol, e.t.c
Lower tier players are also capable of great heights and almost every year one them proves it.
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
Champions win 80-90% of finals/semis against non-champions.
Raining hopes
Hall of Fame
Why SF/F , I know you have restricted the thread topic but why?
If those particular stages is that important , and that indicative of a players merit,than tell me Sir, What does Fraud winning 20 slams represent?why do not you mention Fraud's consecutive GS F and SF streaks which are beyond anyone? Or that Fraud at his peak was 8-1 off clay in SF,F? Or for approx 6 years (2004-09) the only 5 players beat Fraud in a slam F/SF?
Do not mention strength of field because you can never prove your stand on stat basis as it will involve field based analysis.
CHAMPIONS WHAT?.Watch tennis Sir.
Are you telling me that beating an on fire Fernando Verdasco,playing well beyond his abilities and 99.99 % of ATG of past two decades is not a achievement?
Roddick was like a storm in first three sets in WB 2004F ,to weather it and still win in 4 is an achievement better than beating useless 2016 Djokovic in USOF
Beating Berdych playing outrageously powerful tennis in 2010 that easily should be a feather in Nadal's cap.So should it be for Federer stopping Fernando Gonzalez in 2007 AO
Cilic was beyond anything I have seen in past 10 years in USO 2014 SF
Safin played his SF in 2005 at a level beyond 99.9% champions.
Tsonga blew Nadal off the court on a slow surface, not even HC GOATs like Fraud and Djokovic have beaten him like that.
Let alone SF/F
Rosol in the 5th set of Wimbledon 2012 was beyond maybe even modern grass GOAT Fraud. Had Rafa beaten him,it would have been an outrageous achievement.
ATG Doesn't mean anything level of play of the opponent on actual day does.
Nadal_Django
Legend
Roddick!? An ATG!? Andy Roddick!? LOL
If Federer and DJokovic with 1 RG title are counted as all time greats on clay, then why shouldn't any one slam winner be counted? Murray has 2 W titles, so why shouldn't be counted as a grass great if Fed is counted as all time great on clay?
Nadal_Django
Legend
Federer is not a clay ATG. Lol Djokovic also. The only true ATG-s on clay are Nadal, Borg, and maybe just maybe Guga and Lendl.
The slams where Djokodal doesnt reach the SF apparently dont count
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
If ATGs are only 4, Wilander is not an ATG at all then, since he doesn't even belong to the top10.Federer is not a clay ATG. Lol Djokovic also. The only true ATG-s on clay are Nadal, Borg, and maybe just maybe Guga and Lendl.
Federer and Djokovic are easily top10 on clay. They're no.2 and no.3 for number of matches won at RG.
Beside that, I think a champion can bring to a slam final/semi a mental factor regardless of the surface.
But why did the OP then count Nadal's h2h versus them on clay? He said h2h versus ATGs, so on clay they are not, so this totally destroys his argument.Federer is not a clay ATG. Lol Djokovic also. The only true ATG-s on clay are Nadal, Borg, and maybe just maybe Guga and Lendl.
You can't use Fed's stats away from clay to make Rafa's 11RG look more impressive.
Similar threads
