Some interesting Grand Slam statistics

[metsman]

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).

Nadal in 06 Wimby final was a pre-pubescent baby while 2011 Wimby final Nadal was the embodiment of Borg and Sampras haven't you heard?

 

[abmk]

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).

Kuerten also knocked out federer in RG 2004.
Scud made the final of wimbledon in 2003.
Even Henman was there in 2004 , having his best slam season , with 2 SFs and a QF.

can hardly complain about a vacuum for federer when at that time you had in 04-05:

Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin,Nadal, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Coria, Gaudio, Henman.

 

[NoleFam]

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.

You could argue that Federer would have stopped Nadal at the USO but I don't think so. At that point in the year, Nadal was 3-0 against Federer and had the advantage in that head to head. I like his chances in a USO final against Federer that year. You say he wasn't as good in 2011 when his results say otherwise. I do think he lost confidence after all those losses to Djokovic but he was still beating everyone else except Djokovic. I already said Nadal initially peaked in 2008 which naturally overlapped with Federer so I don't see where I said their peaks didn't overlap. It's a 5 year window of when Nadal's peak and his peak coincided. I wouldn't say 2008 was a peak for Federer either but it is still a window when their peaks overalpped.

 

[TheFifthSet]

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!

Lmao.


Yeah, Federer fans can be insufferable when he's winning, Nadal fans can be insufferable when their guy is winning, Djokovic fans can be insufferable when Nole is winning. I've been here almost a decade and I've seen it all before, pretty much. So you can understand my amusement when somebody just waltzes in here in a time when Federer is cleaning up and intimating that this sort of behaviour is unique to (or more prevalent among) Federer fans, can't you? It's like Groundhog Day for me.

Pre-emptive retort to somebody saying that it's more ubiquitous among the Fed fan base: there are more Federer fans here than Nadal/Djokovic fans. The sample size bias + one's own inherent bias stemming from their allegiances, renders that point moot. From what I've seen as a Federer and Djokovic fan, there are obviously a higher raw total of bad apple Federer fans, but that can be at least partially attributable to the fact that the total number of all Federer fans outnumber Djokovic fans by a ratio of like 5:1.


You wonder why Murray's fans are seen as so friendly and innocuous. Is it because they are paragons of virtue and humility, or because there are too few of them on here to represent a statistically significant sample?

^ (okay, maybe not entirely analogous, as Murray's less impressive CV might not attract as many haughty glory-hunters as the other three fan bases, but y'all get the point).

 

[NoleFam]

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.

Yea that's true but the dip is caused by Djokovic and the form he was in that year. Nadal also got to the finals of Indian Wells and Miami which was an improvement from the previous year.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

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.

Hmm, imagine Novack's results in the AO '07 - RG '08 period without Fedal. He might have won 4-5 majors and would have been #1 for sure. Does that mean he was anywhere near his peak? Of course not, right? So Nadal's projected results without Djokovic mean nothing of the sort, either (neither do Federer's projected results).

 

[NatF]

You could argue that Federer would have stopped Nadal at the USO but I don't think so. At that point in the year, Nadal was 3-0 against Federer and had the advantage in that head to head. I like his chances in a USO final against Federer that year. You say he wasn't as good in 2011 when his results say otherwise. I do think he lost confidence after all those losses to Djokovic but he was still beating everyone else except Djokovic. I already said Nadal initially peaked in 2008 which naturally overlapped with Federer so I don't see where I said their peaks didn't overlap. It's a 5 year window of when Nadal's peak and his peak coincided. I wouldn't say 2008 was a peak for Federer either but it is still a window when their peaks overalpped.

His results weren't as good, making finals isn't as good as winning them His level of play was clearly worse as well.

As far as Federer's chances he pushed Djokovic further and was giving Nadal a battle on a court that favours Nadal more. Federer would have a more than decent shot IMO.

 

[RF-18]

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"

Is it really incorrect? You sure you didn't mix it up with ''Most Grand Slams Won With Having To Beat ‘At least’ Three Top-5 Players''. This one was the incorrect one.

I remember you mentioning in the first page Djokovic beat three top five players in the same slam at AO 12 wich is a record for him, aswell as federer who also did it once at USO 2007 where he beat three top five players in the same slam, wich is also a record for him.

 

[abmk]

Is it really incorrect? You sure you didn't mix it up with ''Most Grand Slams Won With Having To Beat ‘At least’ Three Top-5 Players''. This one was the incorrect one.

I remember you mentioning in the first page Djokovic beat three top five players in the same slam at AO 12 wich is a record for him, aswell as federer who also did it once at USO 2007 where he beat three top five players in the same slam, wich is also a record for him.

yeah, my bad then.

 

[Gary Duane]

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.

2010 was a bad year for Novak. That is clear.

 

[NoleFam]

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.


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).

I wouldn't say Djokovic was always good enough to win Slams before 2011 because he wasn't in 2010 with those serving issues. He was in 2008 and 2009 but was stopped by Federer twice but did get his first Slam win.

The reason why it is not the main point is because by the end of 2007, Federer already had 12 Slams which is the bulk of his Slam total. That is different when you have to compete with the dominant ATG champion from the beginning of your career from Slam 0 to Slam 12. He had already enjoyed the most success in his career before they came into their own. They on the other hand had to compete with him non stop to even get to 12. I think that is something that is being overlooked.

 

[RF-18]

His results weren't as good, making finals isn't as good as winning them His level of play was clearly worse as well.

As far as Federer's chances he pushed Djokovic further and was giving Nadal a battle on a court that favours Nadal more. Federer would have a more than decent shot IMO.

Nadal quote: ''In 2011, my problem was Djokovic. Because I was winning against everybody and only losing against him in the finals.''

He was clearly continuing his form from 2010 to 11, in fact, he has never been that consistent and performed at such a high level over such a period of time in his career. I think that Nadal is probably better than any period of his career.

Nadal was playing tennis as good as he could, Djokovic was just at another level than anyone nadal faced in 2010 and he took Nadal by surprise with his game. Especially the BH where he neutrilized Nadals FH. It took Nadal a while to figure out how he would be able to match him equally. But eventually he did.

 

[NoleFam]

His results weren't as good, making finals isn't as good as winning them His level of play was clearly worse as well.

As far as Federer's chances he pushed Djokovic further and was giving Nadal a battle on a court that favours Nadal more. Federer would have a more than decent shot IMO.

So making 8/10 tier 1 finals isn't better than making 6/10 tier 1 finals? Nadal's level of play is subjective but the quality of tennis was better in 2011 than it was in 2010. Nadal's draws in 2010 were rather soft if we want to be technical but that is another topic entirely.

How close the match was between Djokovic and Federer is irrelevant because he didn't match up with Nadal in the same way. Nadal had beaten him 3 and 2 in Miami of that year when he pushed Djokovic to 3 sets in Indian Wells. I do think the USO court favors Federer but at that point time with Nadal's speed and athleticism, I like his chances.

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal quote: ''In 2011, my problem was Djokovic. Because I was winning against everybody and only losing against him in the finals.''

He was clearly continuing his form from 2010 to 11, in fact, he has never been that consistent and performed at such a high level over such a period of time in his career. I think that Nadal is probably better than any period of his career.

Nadal was playing tennis as good as he could, Djokovic was just at another level than anyone nadal faced in 2010 and he took Nadal by surprise with his game. Especially the BH where he neutrilized Nadals FH. It took Nadal a while to figure out how he would be able to match him equally. But eventually he did.

Pretty much this which I thought was already common knowledge.

 

[NatF]

Nadal quote: ''In 2011, my problem was Djokovic. Because I was winning against everybody and only losing against him in the finals.''

He was clearly continuing his form from 2010 to 11, in fact, he has never been that consistent and performed at such a high level over such a period of time in his career. I think that Nadal is probably better than any period of his career.

Nadal was playing tennis as good as he could, Djokovic was just at another level than anyone nadal faced in 2010 and he took Nadal by surprise with his game. Especially the BH where he neutrilized Nadals FH. It took Nadal a while to figure out how he would be able to match him equally. But eventually he did.

Nadal just wasn't as good. His form wasn't that far off 2010 but it was noticeable. But then again you can't tell that 2006 Federer is better than 2017 so maybe you're the wrong person to speak to...

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yea that's true but the dip is caused by Djokovic and the form he was in that year. Nadal also got to the finals of Indian Wells and Miami which was an improvement from the previous year.

I would like to point out that it was a very weird match. After breaking Djokovic for the 2nd time, Nadal won 18 service points in a row (!) - 12 of those 18 points were unreturned serves, and 10 of those 12 serves were 2nd serves (how the hell did Djokovic fail to return Nadal's 2nd serve 10 times in 5 games?!). As you can deduce, Nadal's 1st serve % went down the drain after that break: from *4-3 in the first set, Nadal made 2 of his next 19 1st serves (?!?), and then 15 of 35 until the end of the match. I guess the pressure of hitting 2nd serves that Djokovic could not return finally broke Nadal down, and he lost 4 service games in a row, and ended up winning ONE point on return in the 3rd set.

I don't understand how in-form Djokovic could miss so many 2nd serve returns, but there's no way in-form Nadal wins one point on return in any set, however good the opponent is, or misses so many 1st serves, considering that his average percentage is upwards of 70%.

 

[NoleFam]

Hmm, imagine Novack's results in the AO '07 - RG '08 period without Fedal. He might have won 4-5 majors and would have been #1 for sure. Does that mean he was anywhere near his peak? Of course not, right? So Nadal's projected results without Djokovic mean nothing of the sort, either (neither do Federer's projected results).

There was no way Djokovic would have won 4-5 majors in that time frame. He was 19 and 20 years old, inexperienced and choked in the first two sets of his first Slam final. He had good success in that stretch but it wasn't until AO when he put it all together. Trying to compare that Djokovic against Nadal of 2010 who was holding 3 Slams and dominating doesn't add up.

 

[RF-18]

Pretty much this which I thought was already common knowledge.

I was about to bring up that tier 1 finals stuff. He made more finals in 11 than 10 at masters level and above as you mentioned and 2011 is well recognized to be one of the strongest years.

Nadal was consistently making masters and GS finals most of the year for almost two years. That is unreal for Nadal who plays 6 months then some injury plauges him. He always had these breaks cause of injuries, but from 10-11, no injuries was in the way and he was beating everyone.

I'm not saying though that Djokovic beat him cause his peak is higher than Nadals, I think the problem was the transition of opponent from 10 to 11 was so drastic, and Nadal was completely unprepared for the assault of Djokovic and the game he possessed. It took some time for him to adjust but in the end he was getting competitive with Djokovic again.

So, no question for me Nadal 10-11 was pretty much the same player.

 

[NoleFam]

I would like to point out that it was a very weird match. After breaking Djokovic for the 2nd time, Nadal won 18 service points in a row (!) - 12 of those 18 points were unreturned serves, and 10 of those 12 serves were 2nd serves (how the hell did Djokovic fail to return Nadal's 2nd serve 10 times in 5 games?!). As you can deduce, Nadal's 1st serve % went down the drain after that break: from *4-3 in the first set, Nadal made 2 of his next 19 1st serves (?!?), and then 15 of 35 until the end of the match. I guess the pressure of hitting 2nd serves that Djokovic could not return finally broke Nadal down, and he lost 4 service games in a row, and ended up winning ONE point on return in the 3rd set.

I don't understand how in-form Djokovic could miss so many 2nd serve returns, but there's no way in-form Nadal wins one point on return in any set, however good the opponent is, or misses so many 1st serves, considering that his average percentage is upwards of 70%.

Yea the serving stats were weird that day and Nadal was not as effective on his serve in sets 2 and 3. Even so, he lost to Ljubicic in the previous year in the SF in a match he should have won so it still was an improvement from the previous year.

 

[NoleFam]

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:

Nadal was not an obstacle for Federer on grass in 2006. It is what it is. He was not ready to challenge Federer for the title there which is why he was bageled and lost in 4 sets. He won a set which is great but he was never winning that match.

In 2011, I would favor Nadal in the matchup with Federer. He was dominating that rivalry at that point in time. Tsonga was in great form but I would still favor Nadal in a best of 5 on grass against him that year.

Yeah he had Agassi to deal with who was 11 years older than him, compared to a 5 year difference between Edberg and Sampras. Also, Edberg was still winning Slams after Sampras won his first and was the #1 player. That is not the case with Agassi as he was done winning Slams after 2003 and ended the year ranked #4.

 

[RF-18]

Nadal just wasn't as good. His form wasn't that far off 2010 but it was noticeable. But then again you can't tell that 2006 Federer is better than 2017 so maybe you're the wrong person to speak to...

Nadal says it even himself what the problem was. So it is not just an opinion from us based on his results 10-11 and how he was playing. He says it himself. Nothing in his game was the problem.

I guess that is a conspiracy aswell? He said it to attract more attention from the press and draw more attention to the sport?

 

[NoleFam]

I was about to bring up that tier 1 finals stuff. He made more finals in 11 than 10 at masters level and above as you mentioned and 2011 is well recognized to be one of the strongest years.

Nadal was consistently making masters and GS finals most of the year for almost two years. That is unreal for Nadal who plays 6 months then some injury plauges him. He always had these breaks cause of injuries, but from 10-11, no injuries was in the way and he was beating everyone.

I'm not saying though that Djokovic beat him cause his peak is higher than Nadals, I think the problem was the transition of opponent from 10 to 11 was so drastic, and Nadal was completely unprepared for the assault of Djokovic and the game he possessed. It took some time for him to adjust but in the end he was getting competitive with Djokovic again.

So, no question for me Nadal 10-11 was pretty much the same player.

I agree with this. I refuse to believe that Nadal was below par in 2011. It also was not that Djokovic's peak was so much greater than Nadal's as much as it was that by taking his game to a new level, it caught Nadal totally off guard. He was not prepared for that and wouldn't figure out ways to deal with him until the next year. Good point.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yea the serving stats were weird that day and Nadal was not as effective on his serve in sets 2 and 3. Even so, he lost to Ljubicic in the previous year in the SF in a match he should have won so it still was an improvement from the previous year.

Yes, it was an improvement. I'm saying that it still wasn't a peak performance - that would be 07 IW. Prime for sure, Nadal is not that amazing is IW and barely escaped loss in his other title runs (vs Nalbandian and Gulbis, respectively). He had a soft draw to the final in 2011 and was hardly challenged off the ground until hitting peak Djokovic.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I agree with this. I refuse to believe that Nadal was below par in 2011.

Not in the first half, no. Post-Wimbledon was meh, but then it's normal for Nadal to be shaky in the second half of the season - he's only good there when playing peak level.

I agree he wasn't much worse than in 2010 (other than the USO, because 2010 featured a rare Servebotdal appearance); it's rather that Nadal wasn't unbelievably great in 2010 either, but competition dipped with Federer & Djokovic slumping for much of the season, del Potro out and Davydenko drastically declining due to injury. Even though there was little difference at the top between '10 and '11 besides Djokovic, his improvement was so massive that he alone made all the difference.

 

[Chanwan]

I wouldn't say Djokovic was always good enough to win Slams before 2011 because he wasn't in 2010 with those serving issues. He was in 2008 and 2009 but was stopped by Federer twice but did get his first Slam win.

The reason why it is not the main point is because by the end of 2007, Federer already had 12 Slams which is the bulk of his Slam total. That is different when you have to compete with the dominant ATG champion from the beginning of your career from Slam 0 to Slam 12. He had already enjoyed the most success in his career before they came into their own. They on the other hand had to compete with him non stop to even get to 12. I think that is something that is being overlooked.

I'd say Djokovic had slam winning potential pretty much every year from 2007 onwards, safe 2017. He didn't have it throughout 2009-2010, but his US Open level was good enough to at least be a serious contender if not running into fellow ATG's.

As for the latter, I think you're not getting my point. Had Fed grown up with two fellow ATG's who had followed the normal aging part, he would have won less than he did between say 21-27, but more after. In other words we could be looking at a career, where Fed won as much post turning 26 or 27 as he did after. Or even more. But due to him being the old guy competing with younger ATG's - one of them having a major match up advantage vs. him - that didn't happen.

Let's go through the slams where he lost to Rafole and imagine neither player were in them.
US 2010 Fed wins hands down
AO 2011, he wins that one hands down
FO 2011, same
US 2011, same
AO 2012, Murray could win, but he hadn't beaten Fed in a slam yet and not sure he was ready just yet
FO 2012, Fed in poor form, but the rest not that impressive either. Debatable
AO 2014, Stan could def. win, but he does have a bit of a Fed complex on HC.
W 14, Fed wins hands down
W 15, Fed wins hands down
US 15, Fed wins hands down
AO 16, would have to favor Fed given he hasn't lost a set to Muzz since AO 2013, but Muzz would have his chances nonetheless.

That's 7 slam where he wins hands down imo + another 4 where he would be the favorite or at least 50-50. Of course, the complexity of the tour would change completely if Rafole weren't in it, but I think this still shows that Fed's had the level to win a lot more in the autumn of his career if not for Rafole.

Nadal was not an obstacle for Federer on grass in 2006. It is what it is. He was not ready to challenge Federer for the title there which is why he was bageled and lost in 4 sets. He won a set which is great but he was never winning that match.

In 2011, I would favor Nadal in the matchup with Federer. He was dominating that rivalry at that point in time. Tsonga was in great form but I would still favor Nadal in a best of 5 on grass against him that year.

Yeah he had Agassi to deal with who was 11 years older than him, compared to a 5 year difference between Edberg and Sampras. Also, Edberg was still winning Slams after Sampras won his first and was the #1 player. That is not the case with Agassi as he was done winning Slams after 2003 and ended the year ranked #4.

Not an obstable differs from not a factor. Rafa would have won that match against most players not named Fed. Fed was just at the peak of his powers. Just because Rafa didn't win, doesn't mean we should not count the win.

Should we discount more or less all of his wins over Fedovic at the FO, cause they weren't good enough to beat him and were never gonna beat him that year? That's the same logic.

 

[Jonas78]

As for the latter, I think you're not getting my point. Had Fed grown up with two fellow ATG's who had followed the normal aging part, he would have won less than he did between say 21-27, but more after. In other words we could be looking at a career, where Fed won as much post turning 26 or 27 as he did after. Or even more. But due to him being the old guy competing with younger ATG's - one of them having a major match up advantage vs. him - that didn't happen.

Let's go through the slams where he lost to Rafole and imagine neither player were in them.
US 2010 Fed wins hands down
AO 2011, he wins that one hands down
FO 2011, same
US 2011, same
AO 2012, Murray could win, but he hadn't beaten Fed in a slam yet and not sure he was ready just yet
FO 2012, Fed in poor form, but the rest not that impressive either. Debatable
AO 2014, Stan could def. win, but he does have a bit of a Fed complex on HC.
W 14, Fed wins hands down
W 15, Fed wins hands down
US 15, Fed wins hands down
AO 16, would have to favor Fed given he hasn't lost a set to Muzz since AO 2013, but Muzz would have his chances nonetheless.

That's 7 slam where he wins hands down imo + another 4 where he would be the favorite or at least 50-50. Of course, the complexity of the tour would change completely if Rafole weren't in it, but I think this still shows that Fed's had the level to win a lot more in the autumn of his career if not for Rafole.

Not an obstable differs from not a factor. Rafa would have won that match against most players not named Fed. Fed was just at the peak of his powers. Just because Rafa didn't win, doesn't mean we should not count the win.

Should we discount more or less all of his wins over Fedovic at the FO, cause they weren't good enough to beat him and were never gonna beat him that year? That's the same logic.

This! Its one of the biggest misunderstandings that Roger was lucky not having to compete with peak Rafa and peak Djoker in 2004-2007. Id say Federer is born in probably the worst possible year in relation to the rest of big4, going into his late 20s and 30s playing peak-Djoker and peak-Rafa. If the whole big4 were born in 81, the coast would be pretty much clear for Federer to cash in slams from 09/10-17. Yes, he would win less 2004-2007, but 2008-2017 would more than make up for the ones lost.

 

[NoleFam]

I'd say Djokovic had slam winning potential pretty much every year from 2007 onwards, safe 2017. He didn't have it throughout 2009-2010, but his US Open level was good enough to at least be a serious contender if not running into fellow ATG's.

As for the latter, I think you're not getting my point. Had Fed grown up with two fellow ATG's who had followed the normal aging part, he would have won less than he did between say 21-27, but more after. In other words we could be looking at a career, where Fed won as much post turning 26 or 27 as he did after. Or even more. But due to him being the old guy competing with younger ATG's - one of them having a major match up advantage vs. him - that didn't happen.

Let's go through the slams where he lost to Rafole and imagine neither player were in them.
US 2010 Fed wins hands down
AO 2011, he wins that one hands down
FO 2011, same
US 2011, same
AO 2012, Murray could win, but he hadn't beaten Fed in a slam yet and not sure he was ready just yet
FO 2012, Fed in poor form, but the rest not that impressive either. Debatable
AO 2014, Stan could def. win, but he does have a bit of a Fed complex on HC.
W 14, Fed wins hands down
W 15, Fed wins hands down
US 15, Fed wins hands down
AO 16, would have to favor Fed given he hasn't lost a set to Muzz since AO 2013, but Muzz would have his chances nonetheless.

That's 7 slam where he wins hands down imo + another 4 where he would be the favorite or at least 50-50. Of course, the complexity of the tour would change completely if Rafole weren't in it, but I think this still shows that Fed's had the level to win a lot more in the autumn of his career if not for Rafole.

Not an obstable differs from not a factor. Rafa would have won that match against most players not named Fed. Fed was just at the peak of his powers. Just because Rafa didn't win, doesn't mean we should not count the win.

Should we discount more or less all of his wins over Fedovic at the FO, cause they weren't good enough to beat him and were never gonna beat him that year? That's the same logic.

We could argue that if their peaks all happened simultaneously that Federer would have won more later on than earlier, but we just don't know. How long would Nadal and Djokovic play well before they rapidly declined? How many Slams would they have split between them and what would the Slam counts be? Too many variables and questions.

Whether Rafa would have won that match versus other players is not relevant. The point is that Federer was the dominant ATG and Nadal had to beat him in order to win Slams. At that point in time, Nadal was not good enough to beat Federer in a Wimbledon final and this is how it has happened in generations before him. The established ATG holds them off for a time before the newer ATG peaks and takes over. I'm not discounting anything. This is the way it was supposed to have happened which I guess is still not being understood. What I am getting at is that Federer himself did not have to go through this like other ATGs in generations before him. He had no established ATG that he had to dethrone.

 

[NatF]

So making 8/10 tier 1 finals isn't better than making 6/10 tier 1 finals? Nadal's level of play is subjective but the quality of tennis was better in 2011 than it was in 2010. Nadal's draws in 2010 were rather soft if we want to be technical but that is another topic entirely.

How close the match was between Djokovic and Federer is irrelevant because he didn't match up with Nadal in the same way. Nadal had beaten him 3 and 2 in Miami of that year when he pushed Djokovic to 3 sets in Indian Wells. I do think the USO court favors Federer but at that point time with Nadal's speed and athleticism, I like his chances.

Miami is one of Federer's worst HC events though, he's always had trouble with Nadal there except for this year.

Nadal's 2010 was very soft (something for you to bare in mind when you say he had irrefutably tougher comp than Federer) but his play was not. You use your subjective reasoning all the time when discussing stuff, you have a problem with it now?

I would put Nadal as the favourite simply due to the H2H record but at the AO, on a much slower court against a better Nadal, Federer had chances to take all the first few sets. I think he would do better at the USO and would have a very good chance.

Nadal says it even himself what the problem was. So it is not just an opinion from us based on his results 10-11 and how he was playing. He says it himself. Nothing in his game was the problem.

I guess that is a conspiracy aswell? He said it to attract more attention from the press and draw more attention to the sport?

Did he actually say he was at the same level though? Clearly he was strong enough to win lots in the absence of Djokovic but that's not the same as what you're saying.

 

[Chanwan]

This! Its one of the biggest misunderstandings that Roger was lucky not having to compete with peak Rafa and peak Djoker in 2004-2007. Id say Federer is born in probably the worst possible year in relation to the rest of big4, going into his late 20s and 30s playing peak-Djoker and peak-Rafa. If the whole big4 were born in 81, the coast would be pretty much clear for Federer to cash in slams from 09/10-17. Yes, he would win less 2004-2007, but 2008-2017 would more than make up for the ones lost.

I'd say that's overstating it quite a bit, but my main point is that it pretty much evens out in the end and that Fed, regardless of whether he would have been born with them or after or before would have won a heck of a lot of slams as he's been showing slam winning level from 03-17 with the exception of 13.
Novak had it tougher from 19-25/26.
Fed had it tougher from 27 onwards and will continue to do so given the sad state of the tour, possibly 26 already.

 

[NoleFam]

Miami is one of Federer's worst HC events though, he's always had trouble with Nadal there except for this year.

Nadal's 2010 was very soft (something for you to bare in mind when you say he had irrefutably tougher comp than Federer) but his play was not. You use your subjective reasoning all the time when discussing stuff, you have a problem with it now?

I would put Nadal as the favourite simply due to the H2H record but at the AO, on a much slower court against a better Nadal, Federer had chances to take all the first few sets. I think he would do better at the USO and would have a very good chance.



Did he actually say he was at the same level though? Clearly he was strong enough to win lots in the absence of Djokovic but that's not the same as what you're saying.

Well he was having trouble with Nadal everywhere at that point in time. It had spread to all surfaces except indoor hardcourt. That's why I would favor Nadal in a match against him at the USO that year. That doesn't mean I would favor him over Federer at USO always but I would have that year.

Nadal's draws were soft and I would say his 2011 draws were a bit more difficult but he was still in so many finals. Maybe when I have time I will post his stats from 2010 versus 2011 so we can see how much of a difference there was. I didn't see much of a difference except the USO when he didn't serve nearly as well as he did the year before.

 

[NatF]

Well he was having trouble with Nadal everywhere at that point in time. It had spread to all surfaces except indoor hardcourt. That's why I would favor Nadal in a match against him at the USO that year. That doesn't mean I would favor him over Federer at USO always but I would have that year.

Nadal's draws were soft and I would say his 2011 draws were a bit more difficult but he was still in so many finals. Maybe when I have time I will post his stats from 2010 versus 2011 so we can see how much of a difference there was. I didn't see much of a difference except the USO when he didn't serve nearly as well as he did the year before.

Stats can be cherry picked. But I'll see what you come up with

 

[Chanwan]

We could argue that if their peaks all happened simultaneously that Federer would have won more later on than earlier, but we just don't know. How long would Nadal and Djokovic play well before they rapidly declined? How many Slams would they have split between them and what would the Slam counts be? Too many variables and questions.

Whether Rafa would have won that match versus other players is not relevant. The point is that Federer was the dominant ATG and Nadal had to beat him in order to win Slams. At that point in time, Nadal was not good enough to beat Federer in a Wimbledon final and this is how it has happened in generations before him. The established ATG holds them off for a time before the newer ATG peaks and takes over. I'm not discounting anything. This is the way it was supposed to have happened which I guess is still not being understood. What I am getting at is that Federer himself did not have to go through this like other ATGs in generations before him. He had no established ATG that he had to dethrone.

I get your point. But it's as if you see tennis through some fatalistic lense or something. It happened like this before, it must happen like that again - otherwise it's not right.
Yes, Fed did not have a dominant ATG to dethrone, when he came to power. But he did have plenty of young talent who were further than him in their development and back in 2003 post the US Open, it wasn't clear who would be the main man between Safin, Nalby, Ferrero, Roddick, Hewitt and Fed - with old Agassi in the mix. It wasn't until WTF 2003 and then followed up by AO 2004 that Fed truly set him free of the pack.

And I really don't get why you think it's that much "tougher" to have to deal with in your early 20's, when you're about to hit your peak rather than your late 20's and 30's when you're out of it.

You're right that we just don't know what would have happened. But we have reasonable data nevertheless. Fed's been the 3rd best player from 08 onwards overall. Sometimes the best, often the second best but overall the 3rd best. He beat the field more often than not safe for 2 fellow GOAT candidates. It's very reasonable to think that the level he's shown in his late 20's and 30's would be good enough to win plenty of slams if Rafole were "merely" ATG's (or like the current generation of lost boys) rather than fellow GOAT candidates in their peak.

Also - if they actually were the same age, Novak (and Rafa to a lesser extent) wouldn't have the same opportunity to learn from Fed. As of now, Fed set the bar and Rafa and Novak had to pass it to be no. 1 and win slams. There's no saying how their games would have changed if Fed wasn't there to dethrone in the first place.

 

[NoleFam]

I get your point. But it's as if you see tennis through some fatalistic lense or something. It happened like this before, it must happen like that again - otherwise it's not right.
Yes, Fed did not have a dominant ATG to dethrone, when he came to power. But he did have plenty of young talent who were further than him in their development and back in 2003 post the US Open, it wasn't clear who would be the main man between Safin, Nalby, Ferrero, Roddick, Hewitt and Fed - with old Agassi in the mix. It wasn't until WTF 2003 and then followed up by AO 2004 that Fed truly set him free of the pack.

And I really don't get why you think it's that much "tougher" to have to deal with in your early 20's, when you're about to hit your peak rather than your late 20's and 30's when you're out of it.

You're right that we just don't know what would have happened. But we have reasonable data nevertheless. Fed's been the 3rd best player from 08 onwards overall. Sometimes the best, often the second best but overall the 3rd best. He beat the field more often than not safe for 2 fellow GOAT candidates. It's very reasonable to think that the level he's shown in his late 20's and 30's would be good enough to win plenty of slams if Rafole were "merely" ATG's (or like the current generation of lost boys) rather than fellow GOAT candidates in their peak.

Also - if they actually were the same age, Novak (and Rafa to a lesser extent) wouldn't have the same opportunity to learn from Fed. As of now, Fed set the bar and Rafa and Novak had to pass it to be no. 1 and win slams. There's no saying how their games would have changed if Fed wasn't there to dethrone in the first place.

I'm not saying it has to happen this way. I am saying that it has always happened this way until Federer, which is why I believe both Djokovic and Nadal had it tougher than he did. Yes Federer had his peers to take care of but so did they. But they also had him as their biggest hurdle.

I'm sure he would have won plenty of Slams if it had played out this way but it's too complicated to know how many. Too many what ifs.

They did learn a lot from Federer and he made them the players they are today. There is no denying that.

 

[Jonas78]

I'd say that's overstating it quite a bit, but my main point is that it pretty much evens out in the end and that Fed, regardless of whether he would have been born with them or after or before would have won a heck of a lot of slams as he's been showing slam winning level from 03-17 with the exception of 13.
Novak had it tougher from 19-25/26.
Fed had it tougher from 27 onwards and will continue to do so given the sad state of the tour, possibly 26 already.

Yeah well maybe. Federer is highly likely to win AO14 as well, given that he has never lost to Stan on HC. Im also pretty sure he would win AO16, at least if you also move Andy to 81. Thats 9 slams, 11 when you count 2017. He would "only" need to win 8 slams in his absolute prime years 2004-2010 to be where he is today. I wouldnt say it is to go too far to say he probably would have won more than 19...

Anyway, longevity is the key here. They have all har their tougher and easier years.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

What I am getting at is that Federer himself did not have to go through this like other ATGs in generations before him. He had no established ATG that he had to dethrone.

Funny as it may sound, not having an ATG to chase / an example to follow can be an obstacle in itself. Djokovic in particular was definitely highly motivated to beat Nadal/Federer and take the upper hand in the rivalries.

Federer was a massive headcase in early years, and I find it impressive that he managed to pull himself together and rise from the interregnum, smashing his former boogeymen such as Hewitt and Nalbandian. You may think it's a bit fanboyish, but I'd say Nadal and Djokovic had naturally better mental make-up for competitive winning, so their gradual rise was not as incredible, while Federer kind of built himself out of the chaos. Although Djokovic's transformation during the 2010 off-season is still the most impressive of them all - too bad it's only lasted 9 months at the time.

 

[Chanwan]

Stats can be cherry picked. But I'll see what you come up with

This guy did it already, have a look. @NoleFam @RF-18
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/888816-rafael-nadal-i-played-worse-than-last-year-is-he-right
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...dropped-significantly-in-2011-myth-or-reality

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Well he was having trouble with Nadal everywhere at that point in time. It had spread to all surfaces except indoor hardcourt. That's why I would favor Nadal in a match against him at the USO that year. That doesn't mean I would favor him over Federer at USO always but I would have that year.

A funny reminder:

Fedal's matches outside of clay and indoor HC in 2008-2012:

Wimbledon 08 (peak Nadal wins by a thread), AO 09 (Nadal wins in five again), Miami 11 (easy Nadal win on the slowest HC), AO 12 (peak Nadal wins in tight four)

Does this indicate great trouble?

 

[Chanwan]

I'm not saying it has to happen this way. I am saying that it has always happened this way until Federer, which is why I believe both Djokovic and Nadal had it tougher than he did. Yes Federer had his peers to take care of but so did they. But they also had him as their biggest hurdle.

I'm sure he would have won plenty of Slams if it had played out this way but it's too complicated to know how many. Too many what ifs.

They did learn a lot from Federer and he made them the players they are today. There is no denying that.

They had it tougher, yes. Now (and from 27 or so onwards) they've had it easier. Also, I believe someone with more knowledge of tennis history than me corrected you a bit on your helicopter perspective (that this is what always happened).
Anyway, I think we got as far as we could and for the rest, we'll have to agree to disgree or something - I get your points, hope you get mine too. And that you caught some sleep.

Yeah well maybe. Federer is highly likely to win AO14 as well, given that he has never lost to Stan on HC. Im also pretty sure he would win AO16, at least if you also move Andy to 81. Thats 9 slams, 11 when you count 2017. He would "only" need to win 8 slams in his absolute prime years 2004-2010 to be where he is today. I wouldnt say it is to go too far to say he probably would have won more than 19...

Moving Andy ain't part of the deal ;-)
I think he would be in the same ball park, that's my main point. Maybe a few more, maybe a few less, but the same ball park. You could be right of course and it could be significantly more. But he could also never have gained the confidence, if Rafole were hitting their prime and peak earlier than him (as they did) and the door was more shut in his early 20's. I do believe he would have broken through eventually, just like Novak did, but it could have taken him longer too. We just can't know.

 

[NoleFam]

A funny reminder:

Fedal's matches outside of clay and indoor HC in 2008-2012:

Wimbledon 08 (peak Nadal wins by a thread), AO 09 (Nadal wins in five again), Miami 11 (easy Nadal win on the slowest HC), AO 12 (peak Nadal wins in tight four)

Does this indicate great trouble?

Well this is what I was getting at. Nadal was beating him on basically every surface except indoor hard at this point. Some matches were really close but he was getting the best of Federer.

 

[NoleFam]

They had it tougher, yes. Now (and from 27 or so onwards) they've had it easier. Also, I believe someone with more knowledge of tennis history than me corrected you a bit on your helicopter perspective (that this is what always happened).
Anyway, I think we got as far as we could and for the rest, we'll have to agree to disgree or something - I get your points, hope you get mine too. And that you caught some sleep.

Well the same vacuum that happened after the Sampras era is happening in this era. So you could say they've had it bit easier than Federer did at their age. Where was the correction because I must have missed it? Yea good discussion. We agree and disagree on some things but all good. Yea I did get a little sleep.

 

[Chanwan]

Well the same vacuum that happened after the Sampras era is happening in this era. So you could say they've had it bit easier than Federer did at their age. Where was the correction because I must have missed it? Yea good discussion. We agree and disagree on some things but all good. Yea I did get a little sleep.

I think it might have been @NatF who said your pencil strokes were a bit too broad. Have a look at the 2 articles I posted with regards to your Rafa 2011 level discussion. I think you can dig out some stats that support your case. While Rafa is also saying something different than @RF-18 had him saying above (basically he's saying he played worse but more consistent and was lacking something special when he needed it)

 

[abmk]

A funny reminder:

Fedal's matches outside of clay and indoor HC in 2008-2012:

Wimbledon 08 (peak Nadal wins by a thread), AO 09 (Nadal wins in five again), Miami 11 (easy Nadal win on the slowest HC), AO 12 (peak Nadal wins in tight four)

Does this indicate great trouble?

also ...federer beat nadal easily in IW 12.

------

basically nadal was in worse form in USO 11 than he was any of the 4 above.

federer in USO 11 was a tad below wim 08, AO 09 and clearly well above Miami 11 and AO 12.

I'd favour federer, 55-60 to 40-45 for nadal in USO 11.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Well this is what I was getting at. Nadal was beating him on basically every surface except indoor hard at this point. Some matches were really close but he was getting the best of Federer.

As abmk pointed out correctly, I forgot Fed's IW 12 win.

So, how are 5 matches in 5 years minus clay and indoor HC sufficiently representative to grant predictive power, considering that while Nadal won all three BO5 meetings, all of them were close and Nadal was in better form in two of the three?

 

[Jonas78]

They had it tougher, yes. Now (and from 27 or so onwards) they've had it easier. Also, I believe someone with more knowledge of tennis history than me corrected you a bit on your helicopter perspective (that this is what always happened).
Anyway, I think we got as far as we could and for the rest, we'll have to agree to disgree or something - I get your points, hope you get mine too. And that you caught some sleep.

Moving Andy ain't part of the deal ;-)
I think he would be in the same ball park, that's my main point. Maybe a few more, maybe a few less, but the same ball park. You could be right of course and it could be significantly more. But he could also never have gained the confidence, if Rafole were hitting their prime and peak earlier than him (as they did) and the door was more shut in his early 20's. I do believe he would have broken through eventually, just like Novak did, but it could have taken him longer too. We just can't know.

Yes, longevity is the key here. All players have periods of time were they play weaker/stronger, and all players have experienced a weaker/stronger field. When an ATG is peaking and the field drops a bit, you have years where you win 2-3 slams, like Rafa in 2008, 2010 and 2013 and Nole in 2015/2016 (can't say 2011 was weak, just amazing what Nole did), and Federer in periods of 2004-2007 and 2017.

 

[Chanwan]

also ...federer beat nadal easily in IW 12.

------

basically nadal was in worse form in USO 11 than he was any of the 4 above.

federer in USO 11 was a tad below wim 08, AO 09 and clearly well above Miami 11 and AO 12.

I'd favour federer, 55-60 to 40-45 for nadal in USO 11.

This is where I stand too. Where do you put the US Open 2010 odds if that match had happened? I give Rafa a 60-40 adv. in that one

 

[abmk]

This is where I stand too. Where do you put the US Open 2010 odds if that match had happened? I give Rafa a 60-40 adv. in that one

yeah, around that much in USO 2010 or at worst , 65-35 to rafa.

federer was playing fine before the SF in USO 2010. just threw in a below par match in the SF vs djokovic.

 

[metsman]

Nadal was not an obstacle for Federer on grass in 2006. It is what it is. He was not ready to challenge Federer for the title there which is why he was bageled and lost in 4 sets. He won a set which is great but he was never winning that match.

In 2011, I would favor Nadal in the matchup with Federer. He was dominating that rivalry at that point in time. Tsonga was in great form but I would still favor Nadal in a best of 5 on grass against him that year.

Yeah he had Agassi to deal with who was 11 years older than him, compared to a 5 year difference between Edberg and Sampras. Also, Edberg was still winning Slams after Sampras won his first and was the #1 player. That is not the case with Agassi as he was done winning Slams after 2003 and ended the year ranked #4.

Nadal of the 06 final was not worse than Nadal of the 2011 final.

 

[metsman]

Well he was having trouble with Nadal everywhere at that point in time. It had spread to all surfaces except indoor hardcourt. That's why I would favor Nadal in a match against him at the USO that year. That doesn't mean I would favor him over Federer at USO always but I would have that year.

Nadal's draws were soft and I would say his 2011 draws were a bit more difficult but he was still in so many finals. Maybe when I have time I will post his stats from 2010 versus 2011 so we can see how much of a difference there was. I didn't see much of a difference except the USO when he didn't serve nearly as well as he did the year before.

his serving numbers were way down from 2010 to 2011 IIRC.

 

[Chanwan]

his serving numbers were way down from 2010 to 2011 IIRC.

They were, but half of that could be attributed to Djokovic. He won a mere 60 % of his service games vs. Djoko. And his return games were up by quite a bit. See the first one below for more.

This guy did it already, have a look. @NoleFam @RF-18
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/888816-rafael-nadal-i-played-worse-than-last-year-is-he-right
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...dropped-significantly-in-2011-myth-or-reality

 

[augustobt]

Interesting is a new synonym for biased?