CYGS
Legend
No teenage Fed was just weaker.Oh so the field only suddenly became weak after Federer left his teen years?
No teenage Fed was just weaker.Oh so the field only suddenly became weak after Federer left his teen years?
Still no easy slams like Fed's first twelve.
With some of these people, it's basically:Lol if you say so
With some of these people, it's basically:
If Federer, then weak.
If Nadal or Djokovic, then stronk.
No teenage Fed was just weaker.
From 2006 - 2010, Federer and 'cub' Djokovic met 18 times. 12-6 Federer.
Keeping the timespan equal at 5 years (it's all about fairness, right?):
From 2011 - 2015, Djokovic and 'old' Federer met 26 times. 16-10 Djokovic.
The Federer-Djokovic h2h over 10 years from 2006 - 2015: 22-22
Djokodal exposed it.So Djokovic in 2006 was weaker than a weak field? LOL.
I didn't say that Connors was outside the top50 in all their matches. It was to show that Connors' career arch is competely different from Federer's.BeatleFan's comparison is completely legit. We are talking about another player that played deep into his career. Also, his crummy ranking at 38 years old only solidifies Beatlefan's point that it's tough to be great when you are old.
But Lendl started owning Connors well before he fell outside the top 100.
Here's the winning streak that Lendl had over Connors while Connors was highly ranked in chronological order(started with the earliest dates first):
#3 Lendl beat #2 Connors
#3 Lendl beat #2 Connors
#3 Lendl beat #2 Connors
#2 Lendl beat #3 Connors
#2 Lendl beat #3 Connors
#2 Lendl beat #4 Connors
#2 Lendl beat #4 Connors
#1 Lendl beat #4 Connors
#1 Lendl beat #4 Connors
#1 Lendl beat #5 Connors
#1 Lendl beat #4 Connors
During that 17 match winning streak, Connors was ranked in the top 5 11 times and the top 4 10 times.
There were times when Lendl completely destroyed Connors.
So you've chosen deathExcellent point. Using his stats against him.
lol guilty as chargedSo you've chosen death![]()
Oh, he absolutely does.Do you honestly believe that every one of those 12 Slams was weak?
What? Nadal and Djokovic are one year apart in age and have been playing since 2006 against each other.except they haven’t have they? Nadal hasn’t beat Djokovic in of his recent inflation era slams... Djokovic didn’t beat Nadal for any of his 14-16 slams. Both have had a free ride for years now.
Overall Fed has had it tougher. 3 and a half so called “easy” years is nothing compared to 2015-present
what? Nadal and Djokovic played each other in finals as far back as 2006. They have never had the luxury Federer had 2003-2005. I get you like federer but please at least post with accuracy when you comment as to say Federer had it tougher is clearly incorrect.except they haven’t have they? Nadal hasn’t beat Djokovic in of his recent inflation era slams... Djokovic didn’t beat Nadal for any of his 14-16 slams. Both have had a free ride for years now.
Overall Fed has had it tougher. 3 and a half so called “easy” years is nothing compared to 2015-present
What? Nadal and Djokovic are one year apart in age and have been playing since 2006 against each other.
what? Nadal and Djokovic played each other in finals as far back as 2006. They have never had the luxury Federer had 2003-2005. I get you like federer but please at least post with accuracy when you comment as to say Federer had it tougher is clearly incorrect.
I was 6 months out then i thought they has met in a final in canada in 2006.Their first final was in 2007 IW. They only played once in 2006, at RG quarters.
Djokovic didn’t beat Nadal for a single slam in 2014-2016 so this is clearly inaccurate. 2015- present is weaker than what Fed had.What? Nadal and Djokovic are one year apart in age and have been playing since 2006 against each other.
what? Nadal and Djokovic played each other in finals as far back as 2006. They have never had the luxury Federer had 2003-2005. I get you like federer but please at least post with accuracy when you comment as to say Federer had it tougher is clearly incorrect.
I was 6 months out then i thought they has met in a final in canada in 2006.
Djokovic beat Federer and Murray. Both far better than what Federer beat 2003-2005. So your point is invalid.Djokovic didn’t beat Nadal for a single slam in 2014-2016 so this is clearly inaccurate. 2015- present is weaker than what Fed had.
2019 AO nadal is no tougher than any opponent Fed had during his so called easy years.
Didnt realise Nadal won in 2005 on hard court. His stock just went up a notch for me. Thanks for update.Canada 2006 was won by Federer, Nadal was the defending champion but was beaten early on by Berdych. Their first final was IW 2007.
Wow Nadal won Ca
Didnt realise Nadal won in 2005 on hard court. His stock just went up a notch for me. Thanks for update.
At that time probably more a sign of Agassi health issues as Nadal 2005 was a novice off clay.Nadal beat Agassi in Canada in 2005, it was his first HC masters win. He also won Beijing and another HC masters indoors in Madrid.
Relative to the field, which is fully transient and implicit.Not at all. Federer had a higher average ranking than Djokovic in their h2h.
Just think about the fact that Federer's first 4 wins over Djokovic were when Djokovic was yet to enter the top10 for the first time, while Federer is still #3 in the world now.
About their Slam h2h:
Federer beat Djokovic 1 time after Djokovic won his first 3 slams
Djokovic beat Federer 9 times before Federer won his last 3 slams (and he's not even retired yet)
At that time probably more a sign of Agassi health issues as Nadal 2005 was a novice off clay.
Not both far better at all. Both weak opponents who proved ineffective at slam level.Djokovic beat Federer and Murray. Both far better than what Federer beat 2003-2005. So your point is invalid.
There is no such thing as a GAS. No 30 year old will ever have an advantage over a 24 year old if both are ATG.it's important to understand that the GAS (great age shift) was in process in 2010/2011.
today Feder would have had the physical edge over DJ at that age, but back then that was not the case.
Novak also accumulated a lot of his slams and weeks at no.1 in a weaker period that still hasn't ended.Usually, one would expect age... when you're looking at almost a 6-year age difference ...will balance out over time. Fed had the advantage when Novak first met him, and for x number of years, they then met on roughly equal terms in the middle, and from a few years ago and into the future, Novak figures to have the age advantage. But, there are no hard lines to make total sense of this, and Fed, to his credit (don't take this the wrong way; it's a compliment) is still a great player.
To boil it down in general terms, Novak has probably had a bit of a H2H advantage overall due to Fed's almost freakish longevity. And (as I think, Sport alluded to) Fed had a slight advantage when it came to accumulating a large amount of his slams and weeks at #1.
The problem comes when either of these factors gets blown way out of proportion by overzealous fans and detractors. Fed still had to earn those 12 or so majors and five YE#1s, as Novak has still had to earn his achievements and H2H wins.
Not nearly as much as Djokovic has run over Federer since 2011.Not even a little. People wanna act like Prime Fed didn't get to run up the score on pre-prime Djokovic.
33 yo Nadal is dealing fine with 23 yo Medvedev and 26 yo Thiem on clay. Medvedev may become an ATG, and Thiem may become a clay ATG. We don't know who's gonna become an ATG.There is no such thing as a GAS. No 30 year old will ever have an advantage over a 24 year old if both are ATG.
That’s true, 11 matches (with a potential twelfth if not for the walkover) is certainly enough to back this statement up.Pretty big advantage to Djokovic. Way more meetings in his peak years than Federer's, way more when Federer was past 30 etc...it all adds up.
Why did Federer have a higher ranking in their meetings if Djokovic was closer to his peak?Pretty big advantage to Djokovic. Way more meetings in his peak years than Federer's, way more when Federer was past 30 etc...it all adds up.
Federer and Nadal win 11 of the last 12 Slams without Djokovic. This definitely puts to sleep every argument that they got old in 2011. It was Djokovic raising the bar, not Federer and Nadal declining.
Yep this. It's a simple math, really. No matter how talented you are, no matter how hard you train, If you're born even just slightly earlier than your competition, you're toast.There is no such thing as a GAS. No 30 year old will ever have an advantage over a 24 year old if both are ATG.
The field behind Big3 is weaker than years ago, it's true. There aren't many subistutes to Murray, Wawrinka, Delpo, Tsonga... But it's still impressive from Big3 to win all Slams, the field doesn't just becomes sheit with hundreds of millions of dollars involved... Or otherwise I'm throwing off the window anything Fedal did in 2004-06, with the Ljubicic and the Blake being the main threats to them...It suggests that the young generation is awful - which we know. It doesn't suggest that Federer and Nadal are immune to the aging process.
Oh yes - we know that you think Novak Djokovic is the perfect man. Doesn't make it true to anyone with half a non-fanboyish brain cell in their head.
Why did Federer have a higher ranking in their meetings if Djokovic was closer to his peak?
They weren’t the main threats you troll.The field behind Big3 is weaker than years ago, it's true. There aren't many subistutes to Murray, Wawrinka, Delpo, Tsonga... But it's still impressive from Big3 to win all Slams, the field doesn't just becomes sheit with hundreds of millions of dollars involved... Or otherwise I'm throwing off the window anything Fedal did in 2004-06, with the Ljubicic and the Blake being the main threats to them...
Djokodal exposed it.
Federer average win percentage in years he met Djokovic: 84.37%19 meetings before 2011, 30 meetings afterwards.
11 times in Federer multi slam years, 18 times in Djokovic multi slam years.
Etc...
Carry on talking about average ranking if you like, Fed has been there to face Djokovic in every one of his big years - not so the other way around. They met 8 times in Djokovic's best statisical year (2015), only twice in Federer's (2006). You can argue that Djokovic being way worse in 2006 compared to Fed in 2015 mitigates that to a degree but it's still a sizeable advantage to Djokovic.
2007-2008 Djokovic is as good as 2011-2012 Fed and definitely better than the 2014-2015 version.Federer average win percentage in years he met Djokovic: 84.37%
Djokovic average win percentage in years he met Federer: 84.72%
They played more in Djokovic's best years but you forget that pre-2011 Djokovic was nowhere near Federer since 2011.
Meetings in Fed’s <80% win rate seasons:2007-2008 Djokovic is as good as 2011-2012 Fed and definitely better than the 2014-2015 version.
Meetings in any of Fed’s 90%+ win rate seasons:
0 in 2004
0 in 2005
2 in 2006
0 in 2017
meetings in Djokovic 90%+ win rate seasons:
5 in 2011
8 in 2015
Federer average win percentage in years he met Djokovic: 84.37%
Djokovic average win percentage in years he met Federer: 84.72%
They played more in Djokovic's best years, true, but you omit that pre-2011 Djokovic was nowhere near Federer since 2011 (it's like 75% of wins Djokovic pre-2011 and 84% of wins Federer since 2011).