Slam finals and semifinals between ATGs

  • Thread starter Deleted member 757377
  • Start date

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray:
5 finals at the AO
1 final at the FO
3 finals at Wimbledon
2 finals at the USO

Roddick:
0 finals at the AO
0 finals at the FO
3 finals at Wimbledon
2 finals at USO

Hewitt:
1 final at the AO
0 at the FO
1 at Wimbledon
2 at the USO

Djokovic lost to Murray at Wimbledon and the USO where Murray doesn't seem to really be a different level going by your metric. Part of making lots of slam finals is longevity as well which is really unfair on a guy like Lleyton who had so many injuries early in his career.

I agree. But looking at the big picture and their capabilities as players Murray seals the deal here, with quite a good margin. So that matters aswell if we separate tournaments like you did.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I agree. But looking at the big picture and their capabilities as players Murray seals the deal here, with quite a good margin. So that matters aswell if we separate tournaments like you did.

None of this is really relevant IMO. Murray has been very consistent at making finals at the AO but he's gone down in easily straight sets on three of those occasions, in another he was baggled - you're telling me this was tough competition?
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Federer is 5-1 against Murray in slams, his only loss being in his worst year e.g. 2013. So yeah if you're saying Djokovic is at Federer's level I expect him to beat Murray pretty much every time like Federer did to the likes of Hewitt and Roddick - and before you complain Murray's level of play isn't on a different level to theirs. Not to mention going down in four sets to Nishikori etc...don't see that happening to Federer in one of his peak years...

Djokovic was lucky to make the USO final in 2016 so yeah agree there.

Wouldn't call 2014 a peak year for Novak.

How do you rank Murray with Hewitt and Roddick in terms of prime level?
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
None of this is really relevant IMO. Murray has been very consistent at making finals at the AO but he's gone down in easily straight sets on three of those occasions, in another he was baggled - you're telling me this was tough competition?

Djokovic is 6-0 at AO, he is a beast there. Murray was tough in the 2015 final, I don't why you think that was easy cause he got Bageled? For three sets they were fighting tooth and nail. The last set was easy only.
 

JackGates

Legend
Djokovic dealt with those three aswell. Age and all that you mention , experience takes you a long way. Being more experienced is a big advantage.
No, your body starts breaking down at old age, so experience doesn't help you a lot. This is not chess.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Wouldn't call 2014 a peak year for Novak.

How do you rank Murray with Hewitt and Roddick in terms of prime level?

Not compared to 2011 or 2015 no for sure, but 2011-2016 is generally considered his peak period by most. I'll call it prime from now on to differentiate it from years like 2011 and 2015 - though then I'd also consider years like 2008 at about prime level. Unless you think 2014 was at a lower level than say 2012-2013?

IMO Murray's edge over them is consistency and longevity for the most part. Average prime level is higher for Murray but in a big slam match arguably Hewitt and Roddick are tougher at certain slams.

I just don't like this blanket approach so many have where the standard of match isn't discussed only the name or career achievements. Like I said to RF18 I wouldn't call Tsonga a weak finals opponent because I remember that he played like a God against Nadal - and gave a very good account of himself against an extremely strong Djokovic in the final as well.
 

JackGates

Legend
I agree. But looking at the big picture and their capabilities as players Murray seals the deal here, with quite a good margin. So that matters aswell if we separate tournaments like you did.
Yes, but what matters is the level of play. Murray is just more consistent than those, doesn't mean his peak in GS finals is better.

Wawrinka is a good example. He doesn't have consistency like Murray, but when he is on, he is maybe even more dangerous than Murray. Same with Hewitt, Safin and Roddick.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Djokovic is 6-0 at AO, he is a beast there. Murray was tough in the 2015 final, I don't why you think that was easy cause he got Bageled? For three sets they were fighting tooth and nail. The last set was easy only.

First two sets were great, the third set Murray was already coming down though. Not a bad opponent overall at all but when you consider that's maybe his best effort it's not so impressive.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
No, your body starts breaking down at old age, so experience doesn't help you a lot. This is not chess.

What? Federer has had an injury free career, except for some periods he was experiencing back issues like in 2013. Other than that he has always been able to train at full capacity and prepare his status for tournaments.

Federer seems to have managed pretty well for the last years, don't you think?

Experience doesn't help? It doesn't help of course if you can't move, that is not the case with Federer.

Experience is one of the most important stuff to have in your back pack, in any sport. You were talking about age differences, but Federers experience fills in the gaps, not fully, but still makes up for ALOT.
 

JackGates

Legend
First two sets were great, the third set Murray was already coming down though. Not a bad opponent overall at all but when you consider that's maybe his best effort it's not so impressive.
Yeah, Murray on paper seems like a beast, but that's just consistency. In a GS final, he doesn't have weapons, that's why on fire Wawrinka is much more dangerous. Sort of like Ferrer. Ferrer on paper is amazing, but nobody would count him as a tough big match opponent. Lack of weapons.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Not compared to 2011 or 2015 no for sure, but 2011-2016 is generally considered his peak period by most. I'll call it prime from now on to differentiate it from years like 2011 and 2015 - though then I'd also consider years like 2008 at about prime level. Unless you think 2014 was at a lower level than say 2012-2013?

IMO Murray's edge over them is consistency and longevity for the most part. Average prime level is higher for Murray but in a big slam match arguably Hewitt and Roddick are tougher at certain slams.

I just don't like this blanket approach so many have where the standard of match isn't discussed only the name or career achievements. Like I said to RF18 I wouldn't call Tsonga a weak finals opponent because I remember that he played like a God against Nadal - and gave a very good account of himself against an extremely strong Djokovic in the final as well.

Yes prime is fair, although I do think 14 was weaker than 12, not sure about 13. 14 gets overrated because he won Wimbledon and it was the start back from the mental lapses he had in slam finals and preceded it.

I think obviously Murray is better/more accomplished but I'd agree prime for prime Hewitt and Roddick could be nearly as good at Wimbledon/USO. Overall level similar at their best I'd say.

The thing is I see what you're saying, of course a player's form will vary and you can't consider just the opponent (an ad hominem sort of) but his particular level in a match. It can get tricky though if you go just by level because that can play into the chicken/egg thing of did A just play bad or did B just play well? I think both have to be considered, the player and what his level seemed to be in a given match. If you just go by level, it gets subjective and causes arguments.

We can discern and say Safin played amazing at AO 05 SF, but there are less clear cut examples. We should also consider the greatness of the overall player then for clues to how tough of an opponent he was, even in a specific match.
 

JackGates

Legend
What? Federer has had an injury free career, except for some periods he was experiencing back issues like in 2013. Other than that he has always been able to train at full capacity and prepare his status for tournaments.

Federer seems to have managed pretty well for the last years, don't you think?

Experience doesn't help? It doesn't help of course if you can't move, that is not the case with Federer.

Experience is one of the most important stuff to have in your back pack, in any sport. You were talking about age differences, but Federers experience fills in the gaps, not fully, but still makes up for ALOT.
I didn't say Fed was injured, but his body slowed down. His fitness level dropped down too. Experience doesn't help you much if your reaction time is slow and you are gassed out in the fifth set.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yes prime is fair, although I do think 14 was weaker than 12, not sure about 13. 14 gets overrated because he won Wimbledon and it was the start back from the mental lapses he had in slam finals and preceded it.

I think obviously Murray is better/more accomplished but I'd agree prime for prime Hewitt and Roddick could be nearly as good at Wimbledon/USO. Overall level similar at their best I'd say.

The thing is I see what you're saying, of course a player's form will vary and you can't consider just the opponent (an ad hominem sort of) but his particular level in a match. It can get tricky though if you go just by level because that can play into the chicken/egg thing of did A just play bad or did B just play well? I think both have to be considered, the player and what his level seemed to be in a given match. If you just go by level, it gets subjective and causes arguments.

We can discern and say Safin played amazing at AO 05 SF, but there are less clear cut examples. We should also consider the greatness of the overall player then for clues to how tough of an opponent he was, even in a specific match.

Djokovic definitely struggled a lot in that 2012-2014 period in big matches outside the AO where he was most comfortable, would be interesting to hear his take on what he was missing - but yeah I mean 2014 was his least consistent year at the slams out of those years but he was good in the masters and awesome at the YEC.

I mean full disclosure here (obviously there could be extreme bias entering the convo now :p ) if I was to rank them at their bests at all the slams I'd only conclusively put Murray ahead at the FO, even at the AO I'm not convinced Murray is significantly better - Roddick's win over El Aynaoui was a true classic and Hewitt's run to the final in 2005 was pretty special IMO, Murray's just been hella consistent IMO, the is fact he's gone down quite tamely in slams for the most part. At Wimbledon and the USO I'd pick Roddick without hestitation, USO I'd go with Hewitt too.

And yeah I hear what you're saying but I think a bit of subjectivity (or even a lot is fine), unless we can measure the speed, spin and placement of every shot there's no definitive answer but I think winners/errors and watching the matches (and knowing the players) is generally good enough as long as you're aware of things like the 2012 AO courts being f*ing slow for example. Murray is obviously more accomplished but then so is Federer over Djokovic/Nadal especially at Wimbledon and the USO - so if a Roddick/Hewitt goes toe to toe with him at those majors for a few and the stats were nicely into the positive for winners and errors etc...then the chances are that they were playing very well.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Nadal and Djokovic never payed against younger all time greats. This is extremely rare in tennis, as nearly every ATG eventually faces a younger ATG. Its happened throughout history. Nadal and Djokovic lucked out on this one.
They might have to play Zverev soon who could be a ATG.
Nadal faced Federer in his 6 F at slams whole Federer was facing players who were very good and great but not as great as Fedrer. So it balances it out.
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
Zverev is not an all time great. The big 3 showed more promise at Zverevs current age. So it hasnt balanced out yet. You would be right about Zverev if he consistently faced the big 3 in slam sf/f but he doesnt make it far enough to face them.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
They might have to play Zverev soon who could be a ATG.
Nadal faced Federer in his 6 F at slams whole Federer was facing players who were very good and great but not as great as Fedrer. So it balances it out.

Fact remains that they are 32 and 31, respectively, and they haven't yet faced solid younger players (forget ATG's), and that is unheard of. Sampras had the luxury play part of his best years without an ATG facing him (thanks to Agassi being AWOL), and he used that to the full to inflate his resume, just like Nadal and Djokovic have been using the fact that they're not facing any younger competition (heck, even Federer is using it, now that Djokovic has taken a back seat).
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
great post.
see left.
<----




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
Edberg 18
Agassi 17
Becker 16
Wilander 15
Borg 13
Sampras 11


Highest winning percentage:

Nadal 17-6 (73.9%)
Sampras 7-4 (63.6%)
Edberg 11-7 (61.1%)
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%)
 
Last edited:

JackGates

Legend
I agree. But looking at the big picture and their capabilities as players Murray seals the deal here, with quite a good margin. So that matters aswell if we separate tournaments like you did.
Ok, but if you include Murray, Fed owns him a lot more than Djokodal. Murray has beaten Fed only once at majors and went to five and wasn't a final. Murray beat Nadal twice in majors, and he beat Djokovic in two GS finals.

So, Murray proves Fed's superiority. And the fact that Murray got to play him mostly past Fed's prime, makes Federer look even better.

So, Fed is doing a lot better than Djokovic and Nadal versus Murray. Look, tennis is about matchups. Fed for example never lost on clay versus Ferrer, Almagro or Verdasco, but Nadal did.

Look, in the end you can massage numbers as long as you want, but if your guy is lacking in achievements, it won't do you any good.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
great post.


see left.


<----
lol.jpg

M6XD.gif
 

JackGates

Legend
Why aren't Sampras and Agassi included as all time greats? If the matches from Fed, who is in his 30s count, then Agassi and Pete should be included.

And I also think it's fair to include Hewitt, Safin and Roddick, Murray and Wawrinka. If 1 RG champions can be included with Nadal, surely Hewitt can also be included with 1 W title.

Also, there is age skew as well. Federer actually leads Rafa and Djokovic in their h2h on hard courts. But, most of his prime, they avoided him on hard courts, while past his prime he managed to make so many finals and semis.

Then, should Sampras be included as an all time great on clay? Hewitt probably wins 4 majors if not for Federer, just like Fed probably wins 4 RG if Rafa is not present. So, why exclude Hewitt? Doesn't make sense to me.
 
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.


UPDATE:

Djokovic 35
Nadal 30



Here's the number of ATGs met for every slam final or semifinal played:

mcenroe 0.8
djokovic 0.66
murray 0.625
edberg /wilander 0.6
nadal 0.58
becker 0.57
connors 0.57
lendl 0.5
federer 0.44
agassi 0.41
borg 0.39
sampras 0.27
 
Top