What does this statistic say about Federer

[roysid]

1) Federer has beaten Nadal 3 times and Novak 6 times in Grand slam.
- Won slam every time he beat Nadal and 4 times when he beat Djokovic.
* Misses were 2009 USO and 2011 FO. Beat Djokovic in semis but lost in finals to Del Potro and Nadal respectively

Result: 7 of his 20 slams have come by beating Nadal/Djokovic

2) Nadal has beaten both Federer and Djokovic 9 times each in slams.
7 times when he beat Federer, he won the slam.
8 times when he beat Djokovic, he won the slam.
* Misses were 2007 W (beat djoker but lost to Fed) 2012 AO and 2014 AO (beat Fed but lost to Djoker and Stan respectively)
3 times he beat both in same slam (FO 2006-2008).

Result: 12 of his 17 slams has come in beating Federer/Djokovic or both


3) Djokovic has beaten Nadal 6 times and Federer 9 times in slam.
Out of 6 wins against Nadal, 5 times he went on to win the slam.
Out of 9 wins against Federer, 7 times he went on to win the slam

* Misses were 2015 RG (beat Nadal but lost to Wawrinka), 2010 USO and 2012 FO ( beat Fed but lost to Nadal)
Once be beat both in same slam (USO' 2011)

Result: 11 of his 5 slams has come in beating Nadal/Federer or both



So, the important question comes

"What does this statistic say about Federer."
Possible theories could be
- That he had it easy. Went to win 13 slams without facing any of Nadal/Djokovic.
- That he couldn't match them in biggest matches.
- Conversely it also says about his consistency. That despite losing so many times against them, he still has 20 slams. With a little better record, he could have got 25 or even 30 slams.
- Its all skewed because of Nadal's clay court record

 

[Goof]

I think the statistic says that Federer is older and therefore starting winning Slams before Nadal and Djokovic were around or making it deep into Slams.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

What do you mean by he had it easy???
Does only playing big3, and winning count as difficult????????
That's an insult to all the players on tour who played in Feds heyday....
And if beating 2015 fed is equilateral to beating 2005 fed, then tell me the stuff you use to smoke

 

[roysid]

What do you mean by he had it easy???
Does only playing big3, and winning count as difficult????????
That's an insult to all the players on tour who played in Feds heyday....
And if beating 2015 fed is equilateral to beating 2005 fed, then tell me the stuff you use to smoke

I didn't mean that. I'm not jumping to conclusion. I'm asking for opinion.
Have edited my post a bit to clarify more

And secondly, 2015 Fed was world #2 and beating the crap out of everyone including Murray and Wawrinka. Only Djokovic was stronger. So he was no slouch in 2015

 

[canta_Brian]

What it says is that Nadal and Djokovic have lost early in slams more often than Fed and therefore have not been able to play Fed in later rounds of slams Fed has won.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

And secondly, 2015 Fed was world #2 and beating the crap out of everyone including Murray and Wawrinka. Only Djokovic was stronger. So he was no slouch in 2015

That only shows the weak field in 2015...

 

[Spencer Gore]

That only shows the weak field in 2015...

"Does only playing big3, and winning count as difficult????????
That's an insult to all the players on tour who played in Feds heyday...."

30 minutes later.

"That only shows the weak field in 2015..."

I think you need to get your story straight and get back to us.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

"Does only playing big3, and winning count as difficult????????
That's an insult to all the players on tour who played in Feds heyday...."

30 minutes later.

"That only shows the weak field in 2015..."

I think you need to get your story straight and get back to us.

Apart from fed, mury and wawa, who was there in the field to challange nole??
I repeat again...

Old agassi ~ old fed
Hewitt ~ murray
Safin > wawrinka
Roddick > delpo , cilic
Peak claydal >>> whole clay field in 2015-16

 

[MeatTornado]

Apart from fed, mury and wawa, who was there in the field to challange nole??
I repeat again...

Old agassi ~ old fed
Hewitt ~ murray
Safin > wawrinka
Roddick > delpo , cilic
Peak claydal >>> whole clay field in 2015-16

Tbf, Stan was a much bigger threat to Novak than Safin ever was to Fed.

We make fun of Stan for being inconsistent, but he met Novak a lot in the slams and almost always was a tough match.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Tbf, Stan was a much bigger threat to Novak than Safin ever was to Fed.

We make fun of Stan for being inconsistent, but he met Novak a lot in the slams and almost always was a tough match.

Novak made him look tough match, because he is not scary good against stunning ball strikers
Whereas fed never allowed nalby, safin etc anything in his prime...only slam losses to big hitter were 2005 AO, 2009 USO. Both went 5 sets, had chances to win in both.
Whereas apart from 2014 AO, nole was pretty much helpless in 2015 RG, 2016 USO, 2016 Wimbledon

 

[upchuck]

It says he started dominating before his best rivals aged and matured enough to challenge him. Not his fault and he can't be penalised for it, although pointing out that Djokovic and Nadal's paths were tougher is just a statement of fact.

Apart from fed, mury and wawa, who was there in the field to challange nole??

That's already more than enough to count as stiff competition. It's hardly the case that the dominant player in any era has more than a couple excellent rivals.

I repeat again...

Old agassi ~ old fed

You can't be serious.

Hewitt ~ murray

Wrong.

Safin > wawrinka

Both unreliable, Safin even more-so than Wawrinka.

Roddick > delpo , cilic

How does 2015 Delpo, an absent participant, get in this conversation?

Novak made him look tough match, because he is not scary good against stunning ball strikers
Whereas fed never allowed nalby, safin etc anything in his prime...only slam losses to big hitter were 2005 AO, 2009 USO. Both went 5 sets, had chances to win in both.
Whereas apart from 2014 AO, nole was pretty much helpless in 2015 RG, 2016 USO

It is a fact that unlike Wawrinka, Safin failed to make it far enough to even play the dominant player of his era more than a couple times. That says a lot about how inconsistent and unreliable he was.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Everyone with eyes to see knows Fed had it far easier for a few years than the other guys. But he's doing his bit to make up for it by still winning titles in his mid to late 30s.

 

[EdSWright]

Everyone with eyes to see knows Fed had it far easier for a few years than the other guys. But he's doing his bit to make up for it by still winning titles in his mid to late 30s.

There we have it. That's exactly what it says. Well done, you.

 

[guanzishou]

How about statistic of winning slam with 90 sq inch racquet or smaller as well as winning slam with single handed groundstrokes?

 

[TheIntrovert]

I think the statistic says that Federer is older and therefore starting winning Slams before Nadal and Djokovic were around or making it deep into Slams.

Careful there. You might get targeted for such a wild theory

 

[KINGROGER]

This stat doesn’t tell you that Nadal faced Federer on clay 5 times, and Djokovic faced 33-34 year old past his best Federer 4 times. Neither were formidable opponents. The best wins from any of them were Nadal’s over Fed in 08-09 at Wimbledon and AO imo and 2012/2017 AO.

 

[Spencer Gore]

C

This stat doesn’t tell you that Nadal faced Federer on clay 5 times, and Djokovic faced 33-34 year old past his best Federer 4 times. Neither were formidable opponents. The best wins from any of them were Nadal’s over Fed in 08-09 at Wimbledon and AO imo and 2012/2017 AO.

Clay is a major surface. One of the original two surfaces for decades.

Maybe if Federer was a better player he wouldn't have lost every single slam match against Nadal on it.

Djokovic managed it. That's what true GOAT contenders do. Find a way to win outside their comfort zone.

 

[roysid]

C

Clay is a major surface. One of the original two surfaces for decades.

Maybe if Federer was a better player he wouldn't have lost every single slam match against Nadal on it.

Djokovic managed it. That's what true GOAT contenders do. Find a way to win outside their comfort zone.

Nadal belted Djokovic on clay 6 times too and lost only once. So Federer losing to Nadal on clay 5 times is not that bad, but could have given better fight in 2005/2006 RG where he has his chances.
Loses to Djokovic should hurt more because that happened on all surfaces and Djokovic isn't a lefty

 

[KINGROGER]

C

Clay is a major surface. One of the original two surfaces for decades.

Maybe if Federer was a better player he wouldn't have lost every single slam match against Nadal on it.

Djokovic managed it. That's what true GOAT contenders do. Find a way to win outside their comfort zone.

You’re using Nole’s win over 2015 Nadal to prop him up?

 

[BeatlesFan]

And if beating 2015 fed is equilateral to beating 2005 fed, then tell me the stuff you use to smoke

No one here claiming this was alive in 2005 and thus, missed peak Fed. It does not stop them from pontificating on the subject endlessly. Nobody who saw peak Fed would ever be stupid enough to claim 2015 Fed was even in the same hemisphere as his younger, faster, better self.

 

[metsman]

This stat doesn’t tell you that Nadal faced Federer on clay 5 times, and Djokovic faced 33-34 year old past his best Federer 4 times. Neither were formidable opponents. The best wins from any of them were Nadal’s over Fed in 08-09 at Wimbledon and AO imo and 2012/2017 AO.

Fed's 07 Wimby is better than either of the AO wins and on par with the other two.

 

[Gonzo_style]

It's easier to win the GS titles if your opponents are Hewitt and Roddick

It's harder to win them against great players like Djokovic and Nadal

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

It's easier to win the GS titles if your opponents are Hewitt and Roddick

It's harder to win them against great players like Djokovic and Nadal

Simple as that

 

[Bobby Jr]

So, the important question comes

"What does this statistic say about Federer."

Simple: He is older than Nadal/Djokovic and they weren't around when he was winning his early majors.

Everything else you said, calculated and opined about is irrelevant in light of the above. Moreso, such stats are useless until all players have finished their careers since Djokovic will likely play another 3-4 years after Federer has retired in which any major he wins he wont be able to beat Federer (so his numbers will soften in your workins).

 

[KINGROGER]

It's easier to win the GS titles if your opponents are Hewitt and Roddick

It's harder to win them against great players like Djokovic and Nadal

Simple as that

The point being? The other two had plenty of weak slams too, and are now experiencing the weakest era of all time.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

It says he started dominating before his best rivals aged and matured enough to challenge him. Not his fault and he can't be penalised for it, although pointing out that Djokovic and Nadal's paths were tougher is just a statement of fact.
That's already more than enough to count as stiff competition. It's hardly the case that the dominant player in any era has more than a couple excellent rivals.
You can't be serious.
Wrong.
Both unreliable, Safin even more-so than Wawrinka.
How does 2015 Delpo, an absent participant, get in this conversation?
It is a fact that unlike Wawrinka, Safin failed to make it far enough to even play the dominant player of his era more than a couple times. That says a lot about how inconsistent and unreliable he was.

No, neither of djokodal's paths were tougher, if not weaker....
Who is there to compete with nole from 2014 onwards??
And no, a 33-34 year old player isn't a stiff competition for a prime ATG at all.
Also hewitt is actually a bit better than murray, its a matter of fact and no delusional being.
And lol at you claiming wawrinka being better than safin or nalbandian. He's simply not... (I still prefer him over safin or nalbandian, as he's guaranteed to lose against fed)...
Plus, your comments about delpo being injured in 2015 comes back to yourself only. Fed was denied a slam and thus, a NCYGS by zoning del potro. Del potro was making it consistently to fed in 2009 - last prime fed year. There's just no consistent big hitter challenging nole in any year..

Plus,
Fed's competition from 2008 onwards :- peak/prime nadal, peak/prime djoker, prime delpo, peak murray... 2 of the strongest years 2009, 2012
Djok's competition from 2014 onwards :-
Old fed, bullsheet nadal (2015-16), prime murray,...no dangerous floaters around top10/20
I don't think you were watching tennis before 2011 or 2015...

 

[MichaelNadal]

Lol Maestronians getting rekd on here lately.

 

[KINGROGER]

Lol Maestronians getting rekd on here lately.

Translation: lots of **** posting, weak era/ 2015 Fed was peak trolls creating threads lately.

 

[wangs78]

These debates are so OLD and BORING. All one needs to do is watch videos of peak Fed from 2003-2006 when he had the speed and consistency of Djokovic and Nadal, except he was BLASTING HIS OPPONENTS OFF THE COURT. From the 1st round to the final. It was like watching a Ferrari race against Buicks and Toyotas. Then Nadal and Djokovic showed up, Fed got older and these younger guys got into his head so he played poorly on big points (poor BP conversions) in some big matches and so it became more like an old Ferrari vs new BMWs where the Ferrari sometimes broke down but when it was running it still left the BMWs in the dust. Now Fed is REALLY old, Rafa is a BMW that has run over too many potholes and Nole is a BMW that's been miraculously well maintained.

But, there is still only one Ferrari.

 

[Kiam]

Murray started beating Federer at the age of 19. Hea actually had a winning record against him for several years…..I think Murray was ahead 8 to 7 at one point. Meanwhile, Fed dominated Novak early. Novak didn’t catch up until Fed was well inti his 30s. Nadal began beating prime Fed when Rafa was 19, and spanked him regularly for years. Roger couldn’t handle him until he switched to the bigger racket in his mid 30s. Of course they almost always met on clay, but Rafa beat him on hard courts back then as well…..

 

[Winner Sinner]

So only Djokovic has managed to win a slam beating Federer and Nadal at the same time or am I wrong?

If so, it is quite an anomalous statistic considering how long the 3 have been on the circuit.

Federer could have managed to do the same especially at Wimbledon 2019 where he was one point away from winning the tournament after beating Nadal and Djokovic between the semifinals and the final, if he had succeeded he would probably have achieved the greatest feat of his career also in relation to his age.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

So only Djokovic has managed to win a slam beating Federer and Nadal at the same time or am I wrong?

If so, it is quite an anomalous statistic considering how long the 3 have been on the circuit.

Federer could have managed to do the same especially at Wimbledon 2019 where he was one point away from winning the tournament after beating Nadal and Djokovic between the semifinals and the final, if he had succeeded he would probably have achieved the greatest feat of his career also in relation to his age.

Del Potro.

 

[Mustard]

Murray started beating Federer at the age of 19. Hea actually had a winning record against him for several years…..I think Murray was ahead 8 to 7 at one point. Meanwhile, Fed dominated Novak early. Novak didn’t catch up until Fed was well inti his 30s. Nadal began beating prime Fed when Rafa was 19, and spanked him regularly for years. Roger couldn’t handle him until he switched to the bigger racket in his mid 30s. Of course they almost always met on clay, but Rafa beat him on hard courts back then as well…..

Murray led Federer in their head-to-head for most years, peaking at 6-2 after 2009 Indian Wells. However, even at 6-2 Murray, Federer won the most important match in 3 straight sets (i.e. 2008 US Open final).

Federer won their first match, lost the next two, drew level at 2-2, went 2-6 behind, reduced that to 5-6, went further behind at 5-8, drew level at 8-8, went behind 8-10 and 9-11, but it wasn't until Federer went from 9-11 behind to 14-11 in front, i.e. winning their last 5 matches, that Federer regained the head-to-head lead over Murray for the first time since winning their first match. Federer beat Murray in 5 out of 6 matches in majors, however, despite Murray leading the head-to-head for years. Murray's only win over Federer in a major, i.e. the 2013 Australian Open semi final in 5 sets, was the last time that Murray beat Federer in a tennis match.

As for Nadal vs. Federer, Nadal won their first match when Federer had his bigger racquet, 7-6, 6-3, 6-3, in their 2014 Australian Open semi final.

 

[Dropshot777]

1) Federer has beaten Nadal 3 times and Novak 6 times in Grand slam.
- Won slam every time he beat Nadal and 4 times when he beat Djokovic.
* Misses were 2009 USO and 2011 FO. Beat Djokovic in semis but lost in finals to Del Potro and Nadal respectively

Result: 7 of his 20 slams have come by beating Nadal/Djokovic

2) Nadal has beaten both Federer and Djokovic 9 times each in slams.
7 times when he beat Federer, he won the slam.
8 times when he beat Djokovic, he won the slam.
* Misses were 2007 W (beat djoker but lost to Fed) 2012 AO and 2014 AO (beat Fed but lost to Djoker and Stan respectively)
3 times he beat both in same slam (FO 2006-2008).

Result: 12 of his 17 slams has come in beating Federer/Djokovic or both


3) Djokovic has beaten Nadal 6 times and Federer 9 times in slam.
Out of 6 wins against Nadal, 5 times he went on to win the slam.
Out of 9 wins against Federer, 7 times he went on to win the slam

* Misses were 2015 RG (beat Nadal but lost to Wawrinka), 2010 USO and 2012 FO ( beat Fed but lost to Nadal)
Once be beat both in same slam (USO' 2011)

Result: 11 of his 5 slams has come in beating Nadal/Federer or both



So, the important question comes

"What does this statistic say about Federer."
Possible theories could be
- That he had it easy. Went to win 13 slams without facing any of Nadal/Djokovic.
- That he couldn't match them in biggest matches.
- Conversely it also says about his consistency. That despite losing so many times against them, he still has 20 slams. With a little better record, he could have got 25 or even 30 slams.
- Its all skewed because of Nadal's clay court record

A little of all choices but especially the last one

 

[zakopinjo]

"What does this statistic say about Federer."
Possible theories could be
- That he had it easy. Went to win 13 slams without facing any of Nadal/Djokovic.

correct.

- That he couldn't match them in biggest matches.

he could challenge them but rarely won.

- Conversely it also says about his consistency. That despite losing so many times against them, he still has 20 slams. With a little better record, he could have got 25 or even 30 slams.

He could reach 21 slams. Without Novak and Nadal, he could go over 30.

- Its all skewed because of Nadal's clay court record

He is 1:3 against Nadal on AO.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Del Potro.

I was referring to the big three, meaning one of the big three beat the other two to win a slam.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

@roysid It says that he's older than they are and it's highly unlikely that most of his slams would've been beating one of them along the way.

I was referring to the big three, meaning one of the big three beat the other two to win a slam.

Beg pard. The answer is no, Nadal did it more than once at RG. Federer had two opportunities and, yes, blew his best chance in 2019.

 

[Linelicker]

Everyone with eyes to see knows Fed had it far easier for a few years than the other guys. But he's doing his bit to make up for it by still winning titles in his mid to late 30s.

In hindsight, 2004-2008 was no worse than 2019-2023. Perhaps even better.

 

[MichaelNadal]

In hindsight, 2004-2008 was no worse than 2019-2023. Perhaps even better.

Perhaps? Lol

 

[SonnyT]

Out of his many chances, Federer won once with a healthy Djokovic after '11, the '12 WB!

Let's play a game of either/or. How many of you think that either Federer won none or all of the three slams that he did win?

I would have to go with none! He didn't win with a healthy Djokovic came back at '18 WB.

 

[Kiam]

Murray led Federer in their head-to-head for most years, peaking at 6-2 after 2009 Indian Wells. However, even at 6-2 Murray, Federer won the most important match in 3 straight sets (i.e. 2008 US Open final).

Federer won their first match, lost the next two, drew level at 2-2, went 2-6 behind, reduced that to 5-6, went further behind at 5-8, drew level at 8-8, went behind 8-10 and 9-11, but it wasn't until Federer went from 9-11 behind to 14-11 in front, i.e. winning their last 5 matches, that Federer regained the head-to-head lead over Murray for the first time since winning their first match. Federer beat Murray in 5 out of 6 matches in majors, however, despite Murray leading the head-to-head for years. Murray's only win over Federer in a major, i.e. the 2013 Australian Open semi final in 5 sets, was the last time that Murray beat Federer in a tennis match.

As for Nadal vs. Federer, Nadal won their first match when Federer had his bigger racquet, 7-6, 6-3, 6-3, in their 2014 Australian Open semi final.

I didn't look it up, but Roger beat Rafa three or four times in a row after that and said the big racket had helped him.....

 

[Candide]

 

[Kiam]

In hindsight, 2004-2008 was no worse than 2019-2023. Perhaps even better.

It was easier because he was so much better than anyone else. In 2006, he lost to only two players, Rafa four times, and Murray once. 92-5 for the season! You can't say those other opponents were weak, because they were beating Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic occasionally. They couldn't dominate them the way Roger did. Davydenko beat Nadal 5 out of 6 times on hardcourts, and 6 to 5 over all. Tsonga beat Nadal 4 times.

 

[SonnyT]

In 2004-07, a few players could've dominated tennis, besides Roger! I mean he was the only one there! He won 11 of 12 slams, besides RG.

 

[Kiam]

People act like that was a weak time, but those players had wins against Rafa, Novak, and Murray....Roger was in a league of his own!

 

[Dropshot777]

People act like that was a weak time, but those players had wins against Rafa, Novak, and Murray....Roger was in a league of his own!

For real, they’re just haters