Some interesting Grand Slam statistics

[mike danny]

Djokovic and Nadal absolutely peaked together much like Edberg, Lendl and Becker. Well I can give you an example of what happened in the draws. Edberg stopped Sampras from winning two Slams after he won his 1st (1992 USO and 1993 AUS). There are other examples but I'm tired and don't feel like looking them up at the moment. Sampras handled Becker and Lendl rather well but Edberg caused him problems.

So Federer had at least a 3 or 4 year head start while in his peak before the next ATGs came into their own and that's not significant? I strongly disagree. It's not a bird's eye view but it is the way the changing of the guard has happened in the game for decades. Regardless if Federer had them on his heels or not, they were not a factor in 2004, 2005, 2006 and pretty much 2007 in 3/4 Slams. He was able to hold them off until 2008. Djokovic and Nadal had to dethrone him and then try to dethrone each other, while looking over their shoulder for other threats. It is really hard to make a claim for Federer that he had it as tough as them because they will always win this debate.

But Nadal and Djokovic certainly have not had it harder than Fed from age 27 onwards. And in his 30's Fed has had to battle 2 younger juggernauts in Djokovic and Nadal. Djokodal will not have that in their old years, I can guarantee you that.

It's much harder to have such competition in your 30's when you are no longer at the best of your abilities than your 20's.

Oh and Nole and Rafa did not peak at the same time. Rafa peaked in 2008, Djoker in 2011. Rafa had a 3 year headstart before Djokovic peaked himself.

 

[mike danny]

Well Federer is a rare case because he is still playing. He is not supposed to be at the top of the game anymore but he is a rare specimen. From 26-30, Djokovic still had Nadal to deal with, Federer, Wawrinka and Murray so I don't see how much changed except for the years 2015-2016 when Nadal was out of form. Whether Federer lost to them or not after that time isn't as relevant because he had already dominated when they were not a factor. He had already won 12 Slams at the end of 2007 and they wouldn't take over until 2008. How long do you think his peak is supposed to last? It is a testament to his will and talent because in any other era players were sent out to pasture a long time ago. A guy cannot dominate like Federer did from 2004-2007 and then you say "oh he had two ATGs in their peaks". Didn't he already have his peak and win 12 Slams? That argument doesn't hold weight because they are 5 and 6 years younger and hitting their strides. I think Novak is more focused on getting healthy than chasing any record at this point. He is already 30 and it is not even realistic to be thinking about a Slam record at this point in time.

Since when did they both take over in 2008? Federer was ranked higher than Djokovic until he suffered his first siginificant physical decline in the summer of 2010. So in 2008, 2009 and early to mid 2010, Federer was always ranked higher than Djokovic as well as winning more slams and getting the better of Novak.

Where is this nonsense coming from, that they both took over in 2008?

 

[NoleFam]

In 04-07, Fed had
- an aging Agassi (not that unlike Novak in 14-15 vs. an aging Fed, Rafa was pretty much a non factor post FO 14 until this year).
- Rafa on clay from 05 onwards
- Rafa on grass from 06 onwards
- Novak on HC from 07 onwards
- a more diverse field. More GS champions to contend with.
- Safin (every now and then), Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, etc.

As for Fed having a longer than normal prime, post prime or whatever we shall call it, why should he be punished in this argument for that?

The fact of the matter is, he lost 11 times to Rafole from AO 2010 onwards in slams he would otherwise stand a very good chance of winning. A very conservative estimate would have him winning 6 of those. A more realistic 8. That's part of his competition too and part of how many GS titles he ends up with.
Fed put himself in 40 slam semis or so, that's 16 or so more than Rafa iirc. He did that through a career long consistency and that means he's in the deep part of a GS with the chance of winning a lot more than pretty much any other player in the Open Era (Novak and Connors being the other candidates I suppose).

As for 26-30, he didn't have a good Rafa to deal with from 27 and a bit onwards (until this year, where he himself hasn't been a factor). Fed was in his 30's the entire period, Murray being Murray and Stan being the only guy who could truly take it to Novak in the slams every now and again. I honestly can't see how that's as tough as having Rafa, Novak and Murray in their early to mid 20'sboth with a beat of Delpo thrown in. Especially not if we factor in the match-up problem Fed has with Rafa.

Also, "they" didn't take over in 08. 08-10 were still Fedal years, with Rafa being the main guy, but Fed still winning 4 slams to Rafa's 6, while Novak just won one.

This

Rafa on clay is roadblock for everyone and I didn't even bring that up because everyone knows it's next to impossible to beat him in a best of 5 on that surface. Now in 3 out the other 4 Slams, he wasn't really a problem. 2006 Rafa on grass got handled rather easy and he was not ready to challenge Federer. He was losing early in the other 2 Slams. Novak in 2007 had just made his first Slam final and not quite ready yet. They were green at this point and not yet ready to challenge a dominant champion on his best surfaces in Slams.

Federer is not being punished for his having a longer post prime and I don't know how you got that idea. I guess I need to explain what I was saying better. Federer losing after 2010 once Nadal and Djokovic hit their peaks is the natural order. In every generation, once the younger ATG hit their peaks they took over from the older ATG and dominated. This has always happened so that's why I said those losses to Djokodal were not as relevant to the discussion. You're saying he had all those losses to them during that time when he really was supposed to be losing to them. This is them at their peaks while he has already come down from his peak. That's the natural order. At that point, they have dethroned him and it is their era.

I shouldn't say "they" took over in 2008 but instead Rafa did. He dethroned him at Wimbledon, became #1 and had his first multi Slam year. Nadal had began his peak at this point and Djokovic's wouldn't occur until 2011.

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal was no.2 in the world as early as 2005. Djokovic was no.3 as early as 2007. That's duringFed's best years.

They were notva factor in 2006 and 2007? Nadal was a factor at RG and Wimb in 2006 and 2007 and Djokovic was pretty much a factor at the USO and even Wimb and RG, where he reached the semis.

Djokovic and Nadal were a factor in 3/4 slams in 2007. They were the finalists in the last 3 slams of that year.

Which is why 2007 was the last year of Federer's era and the next year Nadal would dethrone him. It's not rocket science. I already said in an earlier post that Nadal began challenging Federer on grass in 2007 and 2007 was the year when the tide began to shift. However, Nadal still had yet to make a hardcourt Slam SF. He was not there yet. Djokovic began the year at #16 in the world and just beginning to challenge. He would make a Slam final but still not quite ready yet but like I said, the tide was shifting.

 

[KINGROGER]

I don't agree and I'm going to tell you why. Every generation has had to battle the previous generation to take over the game and a battle has ensued to who would be the dominant champion. Let's start with Lendl. He came in when Connors, McEnroe and Borg were dominating and ended up having to go head to head with Connors for most of his career and his Slams. Lendl was 8 years younger than Connors but he would take over and become dominant in his prime. Then right after Lendl started winning Slams here comes a little red headed kid named Becker, who was 7 years younger than him, and Edberg, who was 6 years younger than him, and they started battling him for the top of the game. On down the road, here comes Sampras who was 4 and 5 years younger than Edberg and Becker, and he would start battling them for the top of the game. Right behind him we have Agassi who is a year older than Sampras. Then Sampras would dominate for a number of years and Agassi would be his co anchor. Then here comes the vacuum. From the time Sampras won his 1st Slam which was 1990, the next new champion from the younger generation wouldn't win a Slam until 2000 which was Safin. The next year Hewitt would win his first Slam. Now these players are 9 and 10 years younger than Sampras and neither would be a dominant force for long. Federer would then take over and dominate like no other before him. He is also 10 years younger than Sampras. Sampras has already left the the game and there is no dominant champion standing in Federer's way like pretty much every generation before him. Only Agassi is left and he is 11 years older than Federer. This is the vacuum that didn't happen in previous eras and Federer has to only battle his peers for Slams and the top spot. Now this is not to diminish what Federer accomplished but it is still an irrefutable fact. Nadal and Djokovic have followed the norm in that they had to battle the dominant force before them for the top spot and well as their peers. This is why they had a more difficult road and also a second vaccum has been created which is similar to the last because no new champions have arrived yet. It has been 9 years since Djokovic won his 1st Slam and no new generation player has broke through the ice yet. Next year it will be 10 years and will match the drought from Sampras to Safin. However, the previous dominant champion, Federer, is still playing and winning Slams. I hope this clears up my views of why Djokodal had a tougher road.

I can see your point, but Djokovic has had the same vacuum in 2014-2016 which allowed him to mop up 6 slams.

 

[NoleFam]

Since when did they both take over in 2008? Federer was ranked higher than Djokovic until he suffered his first siginificant physical decline in the summer of 2010. So in 2008, 2009 and early to mid 2010, Federer was always ranked higher than Djokovic as well as winning more slams and getting the better of Novak.

Where is this nonsense coming from, that they both took over in 2008?

See above post which I corrected. 2008-2014 was the Djokodal era, where Nadal won 10 Slams and Djokovic won 7 Slams. Federer only won 5 Slam in this timeframe. Thy also were ranked #1 in the majority of this timeframe. I didn't technically mean they took over at the same time. We all know that Nadal became #1 in 2008 and Djokovic in 2011.

 

[mike danny]

Which is why 2007 was the last year of Federer's era and the next year Nadal would dethrone him. It's not rocket science. I already said in an earlier post that Nadal began challenging Federer on grass in 2007 and 2007 was the year when the tide began to shift. However, Nadal still had yet to make a hardcourt Slam SF. He was not there yet. Djokovic began the year at #16 in the world and just beginning to challenge. He would make a Slam final but still not quite ready yet but like I said, the tide was shifting.

Djokovic in 2007 was not any worse than Federer in 2014. Novak was still no.3 in the world and gave Fed a tough match in the USO final.

It's funny you include 2008-2014 as the strong era, but exclude 2007, even though you had included it before.

Why doesn't 2007 belong there, but 2013 does? You know, the year Fed was irrelevant and played like garbage. Or in which way was 2014 stronger than 2007? The USO final featured Cilic and Nishikori for crying out loud.

 

[Chanwan]

Rafa on clay is roadblock for everyone and I didn't even bring that up because everyone knows it's next to impossible to beat him in a best of 5 on that surface. Now in 3 out the other 4 Slams, he wasn't really a problem. 2006 Rafa on grass got handled rather easy and he was not ready to challenge Federer. He was losing early in the other 2 Slams. Novak in 2007 had just made his first Slam final and not quite ready yet. They were green at this point and not yet ready to challenge a dominant champion on his best surfaces in Slams.

Federer is not being punished for his having a longer post prime and I don't know how you got that idea. I guess I need to explain what I was saying better. Federer losing after 2010 once Nadal and Djokovic hit their peaks is the natural order. In every generation, once the younger ATG hit their peaks they took over from the older ATG and dominated. This has always happened so that's why I said those losses to Djokodal were not as relevant to the discussion. You're saying he had all those losses to them during that time when he really was supposed to be losing to them. This is them at their peaks while he has already come down from his peak. That's the natural order. At that point, they have dethroned him and it is their era.

I shouldn't say "they" took over in 2008 but instead Rafa did. He dethroned him at Wimbledon, became #1 and had his first multi Slam year. Nadal has began his peak at this point and Djokovic's wouldn't occur until 2011.

Rafa wasn't a factor in HC slams in 05-07, but he did win 2 Masters on HC in 05 already. So him being a non-factor in the slams is more on him imo. He did beat Fed in Dubai 06 and came very close in Miami 05. In other words, his level was there, he just ran into zoning players every now and then (Gonzo for instance).
I think not counting Novak's US Open final in 07 as a "proper" win is a bit unfair given he won the very next slam. Sure, he was young, but he was very much ready as he proved 4 months later.

Agree with the last bit on Rafa-Djoko-Fed.

As to the "natural order", my point is this: How many slams would Fed have won from 28,5 onwards if the next generation consisted of merely ATG's like say, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, rather than fellow GOAT-candidates like Rafa and Novak in their peak mid 20's? How many more would he have won if you switched him and Novak's age and had Fed being aged 28,5 by the end of 2015 onwards? I.e. if the next generation was called the lost boys/generation useless or whatever else we call them now.
You can't just say they're not relevant to the discussion, cause Fed would have piled up a ton of more slams if it wasn't for Rafole. Murray-Stan-Edberg-Becker-Wilander type of talent players wouldn't have stopped him half as much imo.

Sure, Fed was in a league of his own during his absolute peak with the two most talented fellow generational players, Safin and Nalbandian, not performing as often as they should and Agassi being the sole all time great from the previous generations. But Novak has had a close to similar window of opportunity from 27 onwards and if it wasn't for his lack of motivation/personal issues or whatever is keeping him back post the FO last year, he would still be benefitting from it and have a few more years to do so (come next year, he just might be again).

 

[NoleFam]

But Nadal and Djokovic certainly have not had it harder than Fed from age 27 onwards. And in his 30's Fed has had to battle 2 younger juggernauts in Djokovic and Nadal. Djokodal will not have that in their old years, I can guarantee you that.

It's much harder to have such competition in your 30's when you are no longer at the best of your abilities than your 20's.

Oh and Nole and Rafa did not peak at the same time. Rafa peaked in 2008, Djoker in 2011. Rafa had a 3 year headstart before Djokovic peaked himself.

But they certainly had it harder in the beginning of their careers which is the main point. They had to take the throne from an experienced dominant champion in one of the toughest eras ever. By 27, Federer had 15 Slams and had been through his peak. Federer had it harder after that age because Nadal was at his peak and Djokovic would hit his 2 years later.

Djokovic and Nadal absolutely peaked at the same time. Nadal won 3 Slams in 2010 and Djokovic won 3 Slams in 2011. They played in 7 Slam finals from 2010-2014.

 

[mike danny]

But they certainly had it harder in the beginning of their careers which is the main point. They had to take the throne from an experienced dominant champion in one of the toughest eras ever. By 27, Federer had 15 Slams and had been through his peak. Federer had it harder after that age because Nadal was at his peak and Djokovic would hit his 2 years later.

Djokovic and Nadal absolutely peaked at the same time. Nadal won 3 Slams in 2010 and Djokovic won 3 Slams in 2011. They played in 7 Slam finals from 2010-2014.

No, they didn't. At the end of 2010 Rafa had 9 slams, Djokovic just 1.

 

[mike danny]

Rafa on clay is roadblock for everyone and I didn't even bring that up because everyone knows it's next to impossible to beat him in a best of 5 on that surface. Now in 3 out the other 4 Slams, he wasn't really a problem. 2006 Rafa on grass got handled rather easy and he was not ready to challenge Federer. He was losing early in the other 2 Slams. Novak in 2007 had just made his first Slam final and not quite ready yet. They were green at this point and not yet ready to challenge a dominant champion on his best surfaces in Slams.

Federer is not being punished for his having a longer post prime and I don't know how you got that idea. I guess I need to explain what I was saying better. Federer losing after 2010 once Nadal and Djokovic hit their peaks is the natural order. In every generation, once the younger ATG hit their peaks they took over from the older ATG and dominated. This has always happened so that's why I said those losses to Djokodal were not as relevant to the discussion. You're saying he had all those losses to them during that time when he really was supposed to be losing to them. This is them at their peaks while he has already come down from his peak. That's the natural order. At that point, they have dethroned him and it is their era.

I shouldn't say "they" took over in 2008 but instead Rafa did. He dethroned him at Wimbledon, became #1 and had his first multi Slam year. Nadal has began his peak at this point and Djokovic's wouldn't occur until 2011.

Not counting 2007 for Djokovic, but counting 2010 is unfair. Who cares about green? Djokovic played better in 2007 than he did in 2010.

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic in 2007 was not any worse than Federer in 2014. Novak was still no.3 in the world and gave Fed a tough match in the USO final.

It's funny you include 2008-2014 as the strong era, but exclude 2007, even though you had included it before.

Why doesn't 2007 belong there, but 2013 does? You know, the year Fed was irrelevant and played like garbage. Or in which way was 2014 stronger than 2007? The USO final featured Cilic and Nishikori for crying out loud.

I'm a little inclined to say that a 19/20 year old without much experience at the top is not on the same level as guy who was holding 17 Slams, still making Slam finals and getting to the SF at 3/4 majors, and winning Masters.

I already said 2007-2014 was the golden era so what are you talking about? I said 2008-2014 was the Djokodal era. You're going on a tangent over absolutely nothing.

 

[mike danny]

I'm a little inclined to say that a 19/20 year old without much experience at the top is not on the same level as guy who was holding 17 Slams, still making Slam finals and getting to the SF at 3/4 majors, and winning Masters.

I already 2007-2014 was the golden era so what are you talking about? I said 2008-2014 was the Djokodal era. You're going on a tangent over absolutely nothing.

Green 20 year old Djokovic was also reaching slam finals and getting to the semisfinals of 3/4 majors and winning masters. How is it different?

 

[NoleFam]

No, they didn't. At the end of 2010 Rafa had 9 slams, Djokovic just 1.

Rafa absolutely peaked in 2010 and in 2011 made every tier 1 final from Indian Wells to the USO barring Cincinnati and Canada. He also battled Djokovic in multiple Slam finals and regained the #1 ranking in 2013. Their peaks definitely coincided.

 

[NoleFam]

Green 20 year old Djokovic was also reaching slam finals and getting to the semisfinals of 3/4 majors and winning masters. How is it different?

Even if you think his inexperience was not a hindrance, Federer still got to two more Masters finals than he did and got to the final of WTF. I'm going with Federer on this one.

 

[Get A Grip]

Federer can count his lucky stars that Nadal didn't beat him at the 2017 AO otherwise this year might have had an entirely different complexion and maybe Fed wouldn't have even won Wimbledon. If Nadal was at his best then no way would Federer have won.

YOu are right. The whole season would have probably played out differently. Nadal was so close to beating Fed, then shanked two easy FH leading 3/1 5th set. I don't think he would have lost to Fed at IW if he had beat him AO (AO was the much slower court, it didn't make sense he almost won on the fastest court of the 3 HCS) Fed got in his head. And that's why Fed skipped clay. He would have lost to Rafa (or Thiem or Waw first) and not been in Rafa's head anymore. Rafa needs a win over Fed bigtime.
He got Djok out of his head in Madrid.

 

[Get A Grip]

You don't seem upset at all. Very content are you.

PS bi-yearly Cult Membership fee is down 15% from last year. Think. About. It.

Hmm, inverted syntax structure, impressive!
The OP in typical avoid-the-real-topic-insult-the poster- fed fan form claimed Rafa fans were upset over Fed's wins, which is so not the point.
I'm very tired of these GOAT fights and don't want to waste my time on it anymore, especially with Fed fans like these, who deny facts, then insult.
So if you picked up on same anger, that's what it's about.
It feels absurd to write a sincere reply but there you have it.

Do have stats to show cult membership is down? This time last year no-one was even talking Fed. Must have been lovely!

 

[NoleFam]

Rafa wasn't a factor in HC slams in 05-07, but he did win 2 Masters on HC in 05 already. So him being a non-factor in the slams is more on him imo. He did beat Fed in Dubai 06 and came very close in Miami 05. In other words, his level was there, he just ran into zoning players every now and then (Gonzo for instance).
I think not counting Novak's US Open final in 07 as a "proper" win is a bit unfair given he won the very next slam. Sure, he was young, but he was very much ready as he proved 4 months later.

Agree with the last bit on Rafa-Djoko-Fed.

As to the "natural order", my point is this: How many slams would Fed have won from 28,5 onwards if the next generation consisted of merely ATG's like say, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, rather than fellow GOAT-candidates like Rafa and Novak in their peak mid 20's? How many more would he have won if you switched him and Novak's age and had Fed being aged 28,5 by the end of 2015 onwards? I.e. if the next generation was called the lost boys/generation useless or whatever else we call them now.
You can't just say they're not relevant to the discussion, cause Fed would have piled up a ton of more slams if it wasn't for Rafole. Murray-Stan-Edberg-Becker-Wilander type of talent players wouldn't have stopped him half as much imo.

Sure, Fed was in a league of his own during his absolute peak with the two most talented fellow generational players, Safin and Nalbandian, not performing as often as they should and Agassi being the sole all time great from the previous generations. But Novak has had a close to similar window of opportunity from 27 onwards and if it wasn't for his lack of motivation/personal issues or whatever is keeping him back post the FO last year, he would still be benefitting from it and have a few more years to do so (come next year, he just might be again).

Rafa did win two hardcourt Masters titles in 2005 but wouldn't win another one until 2008. He still wouldn't make his first Slam SF until 2008. He was not quite ready for primetime on a Slam hardcourt, although he did take it Federer in a best of 3 on the surface a couple of times. Djokovic's inexperience was on full display in that USO final in how he choked away so many chances so that's why I said he was not ready.

It's hard to say how many Slams Federer would have won against a different set of ATGs. Different conditions, different strings, etc. so who knows? Although I think you are underestimating Edberg and Becker. Djokodal also would have piled up more Slams if it weren't for Federer so the sword cuts both ways.

Well yea Djokovic has fallen off in the last year but he dominated when he hit his peak again for the second time like he was supposed to when the field was not as strong as 2011-2014. If he didn't have Nadal and Murray in his way in 2012-2014, he probably could have added a few more.

 

[Chanwan]

YOu are right. The whole season would have probably played out differently. Nadal was so close to beating Fed, then shanked two easy FH leading 3/1 5th set. I don't think he would have lost to Fed at IW if he had beat him AO (AO was the much slower court, it didn't make sense he almost won on the fastest court of the 3 HCS) Fed got in his head. And that's why Fed skipped clay. He would have lost to Rafa (or Thiem or Waw first) and not been in Rafa's head anymore. Rafa needs a win over Fed bigtime.
He got Djok out of his head in Madrid.

If Fed can get into Rafa's head of 13 years of a loop-sided rivalry, I think Rafa needs a stronger head at this point in time...

 

[mike danny]

Even if you think his inexperience was not a hindrance, Federer still got to two more Masters finals than he did and got to the final of WTF. I'm going with Federer on this one.

Sometimes experience is overstated. See Zverev vs Djokovic in Rome this year.

Also, like I said, 2007 Djokovic was better than 2010 Djokovic. That's why I find it unfair to not include 2007 Djokovic, but include 2010.

 

[swordtennis]

Interesting. These stats back up what I've stated. You are going to **** off the fed fans op. They will go after you with savage blood thirsty vengeance.

 

[mike danny]

Rafa did win two hardcourt Masters titles in 2005 but wouldn't win another one until 2008. He still wouldn't make his first Slam SF until 2008. He was not quite ready for primetime on a Slam hardcourt, although he did take it Federer in a best of 3 on the surface a couple of times. Djokovic's inexperience was on full display in that USO final in how he choked away so many chances so that's why I said he was not ready.

It's hard to say how many Slams Federer would have won against a different set of ATGs. Different conditions, different strings, etc. so who knows? Although I think you are underestimating Edberg and Becker. Djokodal also would have piled up more Slams if it weren't for Federer so the sword cuts both ways.

Well yea Djokovic has fallen off in the last year but he dominated when he hit his peak again for the second time like he was supposed to when the field was not as strong as 2011-2014. If he didn't have Nadal and Murray in his way in 2012-2014, he probably could have added a few more.

2 things:

1. Nadal won another HC masters in 2007. Also, the reason why he made his first HC slam SF in 2008 was because he avoided Tsongs before the semis at the AO. In 2007 AO he got Gonzo in the QF and got destroyed, while in 2008 he met Tsonga in the SF and got destroyed. Not much difference. He simply got his 2008 destruction a round later. Just food for thought. Still wouldn't say he was prime on HC in 2008.

2. Djokovic should have been able to handle Murray in 2012-2014, a vastly inferior player to him. His losses to Murray and later Stan are the reasons why Djokovic doesn't have more slams. That's why sometimes I don't believe Djokovic had it harder than Fed overall. He just made it seem like he had it harder because he wasn't good enough to beat the players he was supposed to beat.

 

[mike danny]

Interesting. These stats back up what I've stated. You are going to **** off the fed fans op. They will go after you with savage blood thirsty vengeance.

They don't tell the whole story though and some of those numbers weren't even true.

 

[Chanwan]

Rafa did win two hardcourt Masters titles in 2005 but wouldn't win another one until 2008. He still wouldn't make his first Slam SF until 2008. He was not quite ready for primetime on a Slam hardcourt, although he did take it Federer in a best of 3 on the surface a couple of times. Djokovic's inexperience was on full display in that USO final in how he choked away so many chances so that's why I said he was not ready.

It's hard to say how many Slams Federer would have won against a different set of ATGs. Different conditions, different strings, etc. so who knows? Although I think you are underestimating Edberg and Becker. Djokodal also would have piled up more Slams if it weren't for Federer so the sword cuts both ways.

Well yea Djokovic has fallen off in the last year but he dominated when he hit his peak again for the second time like he was supposed to when the field was not as strong as 2011-2014. If he didn't have Nadal and Murray in his way in 2012-2014, he probably could have added a few more.

Of course it's hard to say how many he would have won, but it's not hard to say he would have won more. Rafole will most likely both end up in the top-5 or better all time. To have to contend with that kind of talent, when you yourself is out of your peak and prime years is tough. Edberg-Becker was more to illustrate that having two guys like Rafole chasing you is not the natural order of things - that's an outlier because that kind of talent doesn't come around often.
And yes, it cuts both ways - hence why Novak had it tougher in his 19-25 period. Or 19-26 if you will. 27 onwards - not so much imo.

And yes, Novak could have won more in 2011-2014 if not for Fedalray, but as @mike danny said, he really is expected to beat Murray in a slam final. He went 12-1 against him from Murray's surgery until Rome last year.

But they certainly had it harder in the beginning of their careers which is the main point. They had to take the throne from an experienced dominant champion in one of the toughest eras ever. By 27, Federer had 15 Slams and had been through his peak. Federer had it harder after that age because Nadal was at his peak and Djokovic would hit his 2 years later.

Djokovic and Nadal absolutely peaked at the same time. Nadal won 3 Slams in 2010 and Djokovic won 3 Slams in 2011. They played in 7 Slam finals from 2010-2014.

This is where we differ. I don't see why that should be the main point. Competition should be evaluated over the course of a career. Whether you had it tough early on or late on isn't that important for your overall slam haul. The main thing is this: Djoko was good enough to win slams before 2011, but didn't win much due to Fedal. Fed was good enough to win slams post AO 2010 for the main part, but rarely did due to Rafole.
Rafa pretty much won the slams he was good enough to win imo - he's had very few misses, but he's also gotten less often to the business end compared to Fedovic.

And yes, it's relevant that Rafa was on 9 slams already when Novak hit his peak in 2011. Up until that point, his main competition was Fed, who he had a big match up advantage against. In comparison, Fed was on 7 slams, when Rafa got his 2nd. And as for Fed having 12 by the end of 2007 (or 9 by the end of 2006, as Rafole both very clearly were factors in 07), then adding another 7 or 10 thereafter depending on where you make the cutoff, it better than what Rafa (so far) managed after he got another ATG rival, who didn't have a match up problem vs. him (6 slams so far after Novak hit his peak).

 

[TennisATP]

Stats are meaningless unless they favor Federer.

 

[RF-18]

They don't tell the whole story though and some of those numbers weren't even true.

The stats is what it is. How you interpret them, is your problem. These are stats based on rankings. And that is what it is, if doesn't suit you, then it's not my problem. The OP is clear as day.

And I have edited the misinformation about beating top 5 players, that was incorrect information I got.

 

[mike danny]

Stats are meaningless unless they favor Federer.

Yeah, it's a conspiracy. Never mind that some of those stats were wrong and most were cherry picked. And also ome don't tell the whole story

Just read this thread. Most people agree they don't tell the whole story. But yeah, you are the only spreader of truth, all of those are just Fed t***s.

 

[RF-18]

Yeah, it's a conspiracy. Never mind that some of those stats were wrong and most were cherry picked. And also ome don't tell the whole story

Just read this thread. Most people agree they don't tell the whole story. But yeah, you are the only spreader of truth, all of those are just Fed t***s.

Some stats? ONE stat was wrong, and I have edited it out.

 

[mike danny]

Some stats? ONE stat was wrong, and I have edited it out.

Well, it was about time. Very good then.

 

[spirit95]

Get a Grip - joined May 27th 2017. Days since joining 55. Posts in that time 1,405. 25 posts a day average.

Reminds me of mayonnaise

 

[Chanwan]

The stats is what it is. How you interpret them, is your problem. These are stats based on rankings. And that is what it is, if doesn't suit you, then it's not my problem. The OP is clear as day.

And I have edited the misinformation about beating top 5 players, that was incorrect information I got.

Some stats? ONE stat was wrong, and I have edited it out.

Well you yourself have acknowledged in this very thread that the no. of times they played the Big 4 in their first 12 slams are a bit misleading, given that Murray wasn't a factor yet for Fed in those 12 slams and Novak only was in 2007.

I have an answer::

ignore big 4 wins

Also, plenty of posters - myself included - have showed you that beating Murray in those 5 AO finals ain't necessarily tougher than beating Baggy or a zoning Gonzo (who took out Rafa).

Yet, the Big 4 numbers are still in the OP with no caveats from you. Why?

And why focus on the first 12 only rather than their respective slam hauls? As I've been arguing with @NoleFam about, when you have tough and weak competition in your career ain't that relevant as long as it evens out in the end.
I.e. Fed had it easier than Novak from age 19-25/26 and Novak has had it easier from 27 onwards and will continue to do so in his 30's.
See post 224 for instance.

wrong again,

federer beat 41 top 10 players in 19 slams wins (2.158)
djokovic beat 26 top 10 players in 12 slam wins (2.166)

Very nearly identical.

Edit : Nadal is further down with 30 top 10 wins in 15 majors won (2)

Also how does stats against big 4 make sense or be objective when federer wasn't even facing murray/djokovic in slams till 2007 ?
is that being dumb or being super-dumb ?
How is even including a stat called # of big 4 wins being objective ?

Finally, I haven't seen you include this piece of information in the OP despite it being pretty relevant to the 'who faced the higher ranked opposition in their slam wins' argument.

I'll spell it out: Djoko and Fed are neck and neck with regards to no. of top 10 players, they've beaten in their wins. Rafa is a tad behind.

 

[RF-18]

Well you yourself have acknowledged in this very thread that the no. of times they played the Big 4 in their first 12 slams are a bit misleading, given that Murray wasn't a factor yet for Fed in those 12 slams and Novak only was in 2007.

Also, plenty of posters - myself included - have showed you that beating Murray in those 5 AO finals ain't necessarily tougher than beating Baggy or a zoning Gonzo (who took out Rafa).

Yes, but the other statistics are relevant. They show their respective roads where ranking is considered across all their slams. The one below, with the picture, is their first 12 slams. That's a good sample. It's not like the people who did it are doing it for their first slam win.

And no, I still don't believe Baghdatis and Gonzaloz are tougher opponents than Murray at AO, no matter how you wanna compare it, how they played in 2006 and 2007 against a different opponent as opposed to Djokovic-murray match up, where there are alot of other stuffs to take into considiration. It's their first slam final, they are green in the scene, did feds level alow them to play better than they did etc etc. There are so many factors to take into considiration than to just say ''well he played better in his final than what the other guy did in his''. As I said, Murray has showed a higher level of play thanks to the consistency and amount of matches he has won at AO, aswell as reaching five finals. He has beaten federer there aswell. So there is no way you can convince me or tell me that I am wrong cause I believe Murray is a much tougher player to face where you are facing different and tougher challenges than that of Bagdhatis and Gonzalez. So please, spare me with your ''me and the others are right and you are wrong''.

 

[Chanwan]

Yes, but the other statistics are relevant. They show their respective roads where ranking is considered across all their slams. The one below, with the picture, is their first 12 slams. That's a good sample. It's not like the people who did it are doing it for their first slam win.

And no, I still don't believe Baghdatis and Gonzaloz are tougher opponents than Murray at AO, no matter how you wanna compare it, how they played in 2006 and 2007 against a different opponent as opposed to Djokovic-murray match up, where there are alot of other stuffs to take into considiration. It's their first slam final, they are green in the scene, did feds level alow them to play better than they did etc etc. There are so many factors to take into considiration than to just say ''well he played better in his final than what the other guy did in his''. As I said, Murray has showed a higher level of play thanks to the consistency and amount of matches he has won at AO, aswell as reaching five finals. He has beaten federer there aswell. So there is no way you can convince me or tell me that I am wrong cause I believe Murray is a much tougher player to face where you are facing different and tougher challenges than that of Bagdhatis and Gonzalez. So please, spare me with your ''me and the others are right and you are wrong''.

It's a good sample, but you have no trouble convincing me Fed did have it easier to his first 12 slams wins than Novak did. What you do have trouble convincing me about is that he'll have faced tougher competition in the years in his career, where he was "good enough to win a slam". I.e. 2003-2017 (minus 2013) for Fed and 2007 to current (perhaps minus 09 and so far, 2017) for Novak.

As for Murray, forget about Baggy and Gonzo then. Was he tougher at Wimbledon for Rafa than Rosol was? 1-1 and 5-4 in sets in the Rafa-Rosol match up compared to 3-0 and 9-1 in Rafa-Murray says otherwise.
Or was he generally tougher for Fed in slams than Roddick was? I'd say the sole win, AO 2013, had as much to do with the Tsonga-match and Fed not being in the best of forms as Murray.

 

[Jonas78]

Well I can't speak for the OP's intentions and I'm only going by the stats. I can't say these stats are cherry picking when you're saying number of top 5 wins and number of 10 wins to win your Slams. That's actually an important stat. The winning Slams when meeting the Big 4 stat is meaningless but not those stats. Murray was the defending champion so no matter how out of form he may have been, beating him is a great win because you have dethroned the previous winner. I get your point about Wawrinka and Nadal but this is a rare case because it's grass and they are not good on the surface right now. Any of the other three Slams they would be extremely dangerous. This is also a difficult year to go by the rankings because of how poor Djokovic and Murray have been this year although they dominated last year. This is a rare case and not the norm. So I still say the top 10 wins and top 5 wins is a legit stat.

Yes, top 5/10 wins are relevant, but they should be used the way they usually are used; by counting every slam (either total or by surface), whether you won it or not, and make a winning percentage. Thats the only way to get large enough numbers to make it statistically relevant. In addition the slam count is 19-15-14-12, which make the numbers in OP even more suspect. At least they have to be given in %, because the numbers of slam wins arent equal. In Sampras days there were also other factors to take into consideration.

Wimbledon17 is far from the only slam. In AO17 you had a nr9 rank and a nr17 rank in the final, and those 2 were without a doubt the two strongest players in the field at the time. If you go back in time you will find a lot of examples.

Im not saying everything OP write is irrelevant, but it must be seen in a larger context. You can not simply look at those numbers and say "hey, Feds got it easy".

 

[RF-18]

It's a good sample, but you have no trouble convincing me Fed did have it easier to his first 12 slams wins than Novak did. What you do have trouble convincing me about is that he'll have faced tougher competition in the years in his career, where he was "good enough to win a slam". I.e. 2003-2017 (minus 2013) for Fed and 2007 to current (perhaps minus 09 and so far, 2017) for Novak.

I'm not trying to convince you of who had it easier, or anyone for that matter. But it is definitely stats that are impressive to look at for all of them. You can only play the opponents infront of you. And your job is to beat them.

As for Murray, forget about Baggy and Gonzo then. Was he tougher at Wimbledon for Rafa than Rosol was? 1-1 and 5-4 in sets in the Rafa-Rosol match up compared to 3-0 and 9-1 in Rafa-Murray says otherwise.
Or was he generally tougher for Fed in slams than Roddick was? I'd say the sole win, AO 2013, had as much to do with the Tsonga-match and Fed not being in the best of forms as Murray.

You bring up Feds form and physical issues in that SF vs murray but fail to mention Nadals knee problems in 2012 after the clay season wich saw him miss rest of the season. That was not a fully healthy Nadal in that SF. His knees were breaking.

 

[Chanwan]

I'm not trying to convince you of who had it easier, or anyone for that matter. But it is definitely stats that are impressive to look at for all of them. You can only play the opponents infront of you. And your job is to beat them.



You bring up Feds form and physical issues in that SF vs murray but fail to mention Nadals knee problems in 2012 after the clay season wich saw him miss rest of the season. That was not a fully healthy Nadal in that SF. His knees were breaking.

Which SF? Didn't Rafa lose in the first or 2nd round? The same knees won him the FO vs. strong opposition ND. They can't have been that bad.

And yes, you're trying to show who had it the hardest, i.e. tough luck Novak. It's even spelled out in the picture presented in the OP.
My general point about Murray (or Fed or Djoko or Rafa for that matter but to a much lesser extent for them) is that just because his name is Murray doesn't mean he'll perform better than Tsonga, Baggy, Gonzo, Roddick, Safin etc. in any given slam semi/final.

You disagree despite all logic suggesting otherwise. Fair enough, I've yet again failed to convince you.

 

[RF-18]

Which SF? Didn't Rafa lose in the first or 2nd round? The same knees won him the FO vs. strong opposition ND. They can't have been that bad.

And yes, you're trying to show who had it the hardest, i.e. tough luck Novak. It's even spelled out in the picture presented in the OP.
My general point about Murray (or Fed or Djoko or Rafa for that matter but to a much lesser extent for them) is that just because his name is Murray doesn't mean he'll perform better than Tsonga, Baggy, Gonzo, Roddick, Safin etc. in any given slam semi/final.

You disagree despite all logic suggesting otherwise. Fair enough, I've yet again failed to convince you.

SF between Federer and Murray at AO, you mentioned it. That Feds 5 setter vs tsonga hindered his performance against murray and that he wasn't at his best form. E.g your implication is that Murrays win shouldn't be full credited to him. And I said, that you brought that up, but you have no problem bringing up that Rosol beat Nadal at Wimbledon although we all know Nadal was pretty much injured and his knees were weak, if I'm not mistaken he called off the 2012 season after that match and was forced to forfeit his title defence at the olympics.

 

[Chanwan]

SF between Federer and Murray at AO, you mentioned it. That Feds 5 setter vs tsonga hindered his performance against murray and that he wasn't at his best form. E.g your implication is that Murrays win shouldn't be full credited to him. And I said, that you brought that up, but you have no problem bringing up that Rosol beat Nadal at Wimbledon although we all know Nadal was pretty much injured and his knees were weak, if I'm not mistaken he called off the 2012 season after that match and was forced to forfeit his title defence at the olympics.

Fair enough, I read too quickly. I think Murray played an excellent AO semi, probably his best slam match against Fed - only rivaled by his W 2012 final. And probably his 3rd best match vs. a Big 3 member down under (AO 2012 semi vs. Novak and AO QF in 2010 vs. Rafa being better)
As for the rest, did you see:

wrong again,

federer beat 41 top 10 players in 19 slams wins (2.158)
djokovic beat 26 top 10 players in 12 slam wins (2.166)

Very nearly identical.

Edit : Nadal is further down with 30 top 10 wins in 15 majors won (2)

Also how does stats against big 4 make sense or be objective when federer wasn't even facing murray/djokovic in slams till 2007 ?
is that being dumb or being super-dumb ?
How is even including a stat called # of big 4 wins being objective ?

Finally, I haven't seen you include this piece of information in the OP despite it being pretty relevant to the 'who faced the higher ranked opposition in their slam wins' argument.

I'll spell it out: Djoko and Fed are neck and neck with regards to no. of top 10 players, they've beaten in their wins. Rafa is a tad behind.

 

[the green god]

I don't know how much of an effect it played in Pete's numbers, but he played almost the entirety of his career with sixteen instead of thirty two seeds in the grand slams. A lot more chances for the top seeds to get knocked out earlier in the tournament.

 

[NatF]

Djokovic and Nadal absolutely peaked together much like Edberg, Lendl and Becker. Well I can give you an example of what happened in the draws. Edberg stopped Sampras from winning two Slams after he won his 1st (1992 USO and 1993 AUS). There are other examples but I'm tired and don't feel like looking them up at the moment. Sampras handled Becker and Lendl rather well but Edberg caused him problems.

So Federer had at least a 3 or 4 year head start while in his peak before the next ATGs came into their own and that's not significant? I strongly disagree. It's not a bird's eye view but it is the way the changing of the guard has happened in the game for decades. Regardless if Federer had them on his heels or not, they were not a factor in 2004, 2005, 2006 and pretty much 2007 in 3/4 Slams. He was able to hold them off until 2008. Djokovic and Nadal had to dethrone him and then try to dethrone each other, while looking over their shoulder for other threats. It is really hard to make a claim for Federer that he had it as tough as them because they will always win this debate.

Nadal peaked in 2008-2009 and then again in 2010. He had 2/3 best years before Djokovic peaked in 2011. They absolutely did not peak together. There was overlap of course in 2011-2013 but Nadal was a non entity in Djokovic's most prolific period in 2015-2016.

Edberg did deny Sampras a couple of majors, but they never met in a major again after that AO in 1993 IIRC. So hardly a major rival when nearly all Sampras's success happened after that. I suppose you could say he was in his prime but stopped by great competition? But then you're giving Federer no credit for being stopped by Nadal/Djokovic later on.

Federer didn't have a 3 or 4 year head start. Nadal not a factor in 06-07? Two slam finals against Federer in both years? What nonsense is this. Your arguments fall flat when you look at performances on the day anyway e.g. Djokovic in 2012/2014 at the FO, Djokovic at the USO in 2013. Nadal a non factor on grass from 2012 onwards etc...

 

[cknobman]

Statistics are meaningless as they can be spun to suit whoever is generating them.

You could also say that the reason Djokovic (and to some extent Nadal) faced so many Top 5 players in their grand slams is because the depth of mens tennis is more shallow than before.
You could even generate statistics to prove it. The number of overall titles, masters titles, grand slams show that outside of a handful of players the majority of the tour just isnt good enough to win a title.

Therefore you could say Sampras (and to some extent Federer) competed in a stronger era with more depth on the tour.

 

[abmk]

Nadal peaked in 2008-2009 and then again in 2010. He had 2/3 best years before Djokovic peaked in 2011. They absolutely did not peak together. There was overlap of course in 2011-2013 but Nadal was a non entity in Djokovic's most prolific period in 2015-2016.

Edberg did deny Sampras a couple of majors, but they never met in a major again after that AO in 1993 IIRC. So hardly a major rival when nearly all Sampras's success happened after that. I suppose you could say he was in his prime but stopped by great competition? But then you're giving Federer no credit for being stopped by Nadal/Djokovic later on.

Federer didn't have a 3 or 4 year head start. Nadal not a factor in 06-07? Two slam finals against Federer in both years? What nonsense is this. Your arguments fall flat when you look at performances on the day anyway e.g. Djokovic in 2012/2014 at the FO, Djokovic at the USO in 2013. Nadal a non factor on grass from 2012 onwards etc...

federer-nadal faced each other in majors 8 times from 2005-09
djokovic-nadal faced each other in majors 7 times from 2011-14

 

[Gary Duane]

I think Federer has pretty much summed up the GOAT debate and staked his claim at this point based on pure numbers and longevity. I also believe Djokovic had the hardest road but he did fail too many times at majors he should have won. At least 2 or 3. I take Federer's age into consideration but being that he didn't have to battle the previous dominant champion before him, this is all balancing out in the end.

That's exactly right. No one was battling Fed for #1 the way people did later, although it's not accurate or fair to say that Fed did not have competition just because that competition was not more or less concentrated into one or two players. I think he possibly had it a LITTLE easy at times at the beginning of his career, but he's really been up against later in his career.

During Novak's dominant years (2011 on) the competition has been pretty brutal, but certainly he got a bit lucky to with Nadal's injuries and the injuries of Fedal last year.

I used to argue a lot more about Fed being GOAT before this year happened...

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal peaked in 2008-2009 and then again in 2010. He had 2/3 best years before Djokovic peaked in 2011. They absolutely did not peak together. There was overlap of course in 2011-2013 but Nadal was a non entity in Djokovic's most prolific period in 2015-2016.

Edberg did deny Sampras a couple of majors, but they never met in a major again after that AO in 1993 IIRC. So hardly a major rival when nearly all Sampras's success happened after that. I suppose you could say he was in his prime but stopped by great competition? But then you're giving Federer no credit for being stopped by Nadal/Djokovic later on.

Federer didn't have a 3 or 4 year head start. Nadal not a factor in 06-07? Two slam finals against Federer in both years? What nonsense is this. Your arguments fall flat when you look at performances on the day anyway e.g. Djokovic in 2012/2014 at the FO, Djokovic at the USO in 2013. Nadal a non factor on grass from 2012 onwards etc...

If it weren't for Djokovic in 2011, Nadal would have had two 3 Slam seasons back to back. No one was going to stop Rafa from doing that. 2010-2011 was Rafa peaking and Djokovic took not only the #1 ranking away from him but won 3 Slams. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that Djokodal did not peak together. Nadal got to more tier 1 finals in 2011 than he did in 2010. They also met 8 times in Slams from 2010-2014 and in 7 Slam finals, which is this exact number of meetings and Slam finals that he and Federer had from 2005-2009 in the same 5 year period. His peaks overlapped with Djokovic and Federer.

Edberg and Sampras still met 14 times and Sampras had an older ATG to deal with after winning his first Slam. The thing is Federer was supposed to be stopped by Djokovic and Nadal later on because that's the natural order. He is not supposed to be beating them at their peaks. He doesn't get extra credit for losing when he was supposed to be losing. This happened to every ATG before him.

Nadal was a non factor at 3/4 Slams in 2006. He got to his first Wimbledon final but lost easily and took a bagel if I remember correctly. It wasn't until 2007 when he began to challenge on grass which I stated in earlier posts. 2007 was the year when the tide shifted and Federer's era and the golden era overlapped.

 

[abmk]

If it weren't for Djokovic in 2011, Nadal would have had two 3 Slam seasons back to back. No one was going to stop Rafa from doing that. 2010-2011 was Rafa peaking and Djokovic took not only the #1 ranking away from him but won 3 Slams. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that Djokodal did not peak together. Nadal got to more tier 1 finals in 2011 than he did in 2010. They also met 8 times in Slams from 2010-2014 and in 7 Slam finals, which is this exact number of meetings and Slam finals that he and Federer had from 2005-2009 in the same 5 year period. His peaks overlapped with Djokovic and Federer.

yeah,no .

federer/tsonga would've stopped nadal in 2011 at USO/wimby . I highly doubt he was going to win both.

2011 - the competition was tougher than the easy roads nadal had in 2010.

peak level was higher for nadal in 2010 compared to 2011, even if he was just as consistent in 2011.

 

[abmk]

Some stats? ONE stat was wrong, and I have edited it out.

you haven't. Its still wrong.

"
Record of Top 5 players beaten in a same Grand Slam:

1. Federer – 3
2. Nadal – 3
3. Djokovic – 3
4. Sampras – 2"

 

[NoleFam]

That's exactly right. No one was battling Fed for #1 the way people did later, although it's not accurate or fair to say that Fed did not have competition just because that competition was not more or less concentrated into one or two players. I think he possibly had it a LITTLE easy at times at the beginning of his career, but he's really been up against later in his career.

During Novak's dominant years (2011 on) the competition has been pretty brutal, but certainly he got a bit lucky to with Nadal's injuries and the injuries of Fedal last year.

I used to argue a lot more about Fed being GOAT before this year happened...

Of course Federer had competition but I'm just pointing out that his generation had a vacuum where the old guard was mostly gone because of the large gap of age difference. It wasn't a passing of the torch like in all the other generations. It was the later years when Federer had to play Nadal and Djokovic repeatedly well past his prime where it balanced out in the end.

Nadal had to leave RG last year because of injury as well as Federer. That's really the only Slam where he benefitted. Even so, Nadal hadn't beat him in 7 matches and Federer had declined on clay so he still would have had the advantage had they been able to play.

Well it's hard for anyone to argue against Federer's claim to being GOAT at this point after all he has achieved.

 

[NatF]

If it weren't for Djokovic in 2011, Nadal would have had two 3 Slam seasons back to back. No one was going to stop Rafa from doing that. 2010-2011 was Rafa peaking and Djokovic took not only the #1 ranking away from him but won 3 Slams. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that Djokodal did not peak together. Nadal got to more tier 1 finals in 2011 than he did in 2010. They also met 8 times in Slams from 2010-2014 and in 7 Slam finals, which is this exact number of meetings and Slam finals that he and Federer had from 2005-2009 in the same 5 year period. His peaks overlapped with Djokovic and Federer.

I said Nadal was peak in that 11-13 time frame. But he still had most of his best years prior to this. It's not set in stone that Nadal wins the USO in 2011, hyperbole about no one stopping him aside. Without Djokovic dominating the year maybe the draw is different at Wimbledon as well. It's obvious he wasn't as good as the year before even if it's still a peak year overall. The only places he was better were IW and Miami, early rounds in Wimbledon too but not the final couple of rounds.

I don't know you can say with a straight face they did peak together. Nadal peaked in 2008 at the latest, Djokovic in 2011. Their peaks overlapped but they didn't peak at the same time at first. That's irrefutable as you like to say. So now Nadal's peak did overlap with Federer? Also counting 2010 as a peak year for Djokovic is hilarious.

 

[Gary Duane]

If it weren't for Djokovic in 2011, Nadal would have had two 3 Slam seasons back to back. No one was going to stop Rafa from doing that. 2010-2011 was Rafa peaking and Djokovic took not only the #1 ranking away from him but won 3 Slams. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that Djokodal did not peak together. Nadal got to more tier 1 finals in 2011 than he did in 2010. They also met 8 times in Slams from 2010-2014 and in 7 Slam finals, which is this exact number of meetings and Slam finals that he and Federer had from 2005-2009 in the same 5 year period. His peaks overlapped with Djokovic and Federer.

One thing we can do, which I have not yet done, is to compare such seasons with and without the matches of the one player who is ruining the other's year.

Nadal without Djokovic in HCs, 2011:

59.4480% of games
80.4878% of matches

With Djokovic

57.7478%
75.0000%

Not a stellar year on HCs winning a bit more than 80%, but good. Only 75%, much worse, and game% falls.

So one tough opponent in a year can really make a difference to all stats.

 

[Chanwan]

If it weren't for Djokovic in 2011, Nadal would have had two 3 Slam seasons back to back. No one was going to stop Rafa from doing that. 2010-2011 was Rafa peaking and Djokovic took not only the #1 ranking away from him but won 3 Slams. I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that Djokodal did not peak together. Nadal got to more tier 1 finals in 2011 than he did in 2010. They also met 8 times in Slams from 2010-2014 and in 7 Slam finals, which is this exact number of meetings and Slam finals that he and Federer had from 2005-2009 in the same 5 year period. His peaks overlapped with Djokovic and Federer.

Edberg and Sampras still met 14 times and Sampras had an older ATG to deal with after winning his first Slam. The thing is Federer was supposed to be stopped by Djokovic and Nadal later on because that's the natural order. He is not supposed to be beating them at their peaks. He doesn't get extra credit for losing when he was supposed to be losing. This happened to every ATG before him.

Nadal was a non factor at 3/4 Slams in 2006. He got to his first Wimbledon final but lost easily and took a bagel if I remember correctly. It wasn't until 2007 when he began to challenge on grass which I stated in earlier posts. 2007 was the year when the tide shifted and Federer's era and the golden era overlapped.

The bold is BS. I would favor Rafa in 2010, had Fed gone through Novak in the semis, but I would favor Fed in 2011. Of course that's not saying he would surely win, but you can't say the same for Rafa either. Heck, you can't even say he would def. win Wimbledon as Tsonga was in more than excellent form and he's exactly the kind of opponent who Rafa has had problems with ever since 2011.
You can't say with a straight face that a guy who gets to the final of a slam and took a set of Fed and another to a TB in the middle of his 5 years undefeated run on grass was a non-factor. Seriously? Who's a factor then?
Was Fed ever a factor on clay? I suppose not. Was Djokovic outside of 2013, where he took Rafa to the brink and 2016, where he finally won?

Fed also had Agassi to deal with after winning his first slam. And they met twice as many times in slams (4 to 2) as Edberg-Sampras did (2-0 to Edberg and 3-1 to Fed).

Also, this:

federer-nadal faced each other in majors 8 times from 2005-09
djokovic-nadal faced each other in majors 7 times from 2011-14