Which Gap Is Wider?

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic was knocked out before final only 6 times

RG 2011 Fed
Wimby 2012 Fed
RG 2013 Nadal
AO 2014 Wawrinka
USO 2014 Kei
Wimby 2016 Querry

Fed 4 times
RG 2004 Kuerten
AO 2005 Safin
RG 2005 Nadal
AO 2008 Djokovic

Both are very comparable.

 

[Lleytonstation]

That is not 100% proven

Players today serve far better than in the past. Still don't attack the net. They are not idiots, its far too difficult to attack net today.

Put them back in 90s and then we can talk.

Too difficult due to technology.

 

[zagor]

I think all of the 3 are very close in ability. It's short-sighted to boil down Lend's career to "8 slams" without taking into effect many factors which make cross era comparisons very difficult.

Lendl revolutionized the game in terms of playing style and fitness/preparation. He reached 8 consecutive USO finals and had the toughest competition out of any ATG, played in very polarized conditions and didn't have the medical advantage modern pros enjoy which have increased longevity across the board in all sports.

Only an ignoramus would think a comparison with Lendl is insulting for Fed (or Novak for that matter).

As Snoop Dogg said, Ivan Lendl was the truth.

 

[zagor]

That is not 100% proven

Players today serve far better than in the past. Still don't attack the net. They are not idiots, its far too difficult to attack net today.

Put them back in 90s and then we can talk.

Many of today's players would crash out in the Wimbledon 1st week in the 90s. They're largely one-dimensional baseline bots who have no transition game to speak of.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Many of today's players would crash out in the Wimbledon 1st week in the 90s. They're largely one-dimensional baseline bots who have no transition game to speak of.

I can't say for sure

What is worse being servebots or real players but playing one dimensional baseline tennis ?

 

[zagor]

I can't say for sure

What is worse being servebots or real players but playing one dimensional baseline tennis ?

That servebots dominated the 90s is a misconception.

Sampras was a pretty complete player actually, a true all-courter. Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Chang, Guga etc. were not servebots.

 

[Pheasant]

I think all of the 3 are very close in ability. It's short-sighted to boil down Lend's career to "8 slams" without taking into effect many factors which make cross era comparisons very difficult.

Lendl revolutionized the game in terms of playing style and fitness/preparation. He reached 8 consecutive USO finals and had the toughest competition out of any ATG, played in very polarized conditions and didn't have the medical advantage modern pros enjoy which have increased longevity across the board in all sports.

Only an ignoramus would think a comparison with Lendl is insulting for Fed (or Novak for that matter).

As Snoop Dogg said, Ivan Lendl was the truth.

Good post. I don't find it insulting for Fed to be compared to peak Lendl. Peak Lendl was an absolute monster. And thankfully(for us Mac fans), it took until 1988 for the AO to be switched away from grass(by far Lendl's worst surface) to hard courts, a surface that he was dominant on.

 

[nolefam_2024]

That servebots dominated the 90s is a misconception.

Sampras was a pretty complete player actually, a true all-courter. Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Chang, Guga etc. were not servebots.

And djokovic Nadal murray are not one dimensional. They can hang in 90s grass as well

But as you attacked this gen I will attack old gen. It's simple.

Both generations had far different playing style. But it's 100% guaranteed which generation plays more physical game. Isn't it.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Good post. I don't find it insulting for Fed to be compared to peak Lendl. Peak Lendl was an absolute monster. And thankfully(for us Mac fans), it took until 1988 for the AO to be switched away from grass(by far Lendl's worst surface) to hard courts, a surface that he was dominant on.

Definitely. If he was in this era, he would easily be in double digits. Only guy outside of Federer to win 3 in a row at usopen and would have won many on slowed Wimbledon plus hard courts ao.

 

[Holmes]

You think you are cute but its not.
Majority nothing. With 60% of points S&V and many of those 40 are when he is forced back, he was basically hanging around at the net.

In tennis even 1% can make huge difference but just for your understanding, Fed played less than 10% of points at as S&V and even he rarely had 4+ hr matches. His game was far too physical to someone like Pete or Boris who charged the net without huge worry. Very successfully.

Did you watch Pete? This is a genuine question.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Did you watch Pete? This is a genuine question.

Of course not

I watched some of his famous matches I did not watch Pete

I trust numbers. I can't watch every single gen. Pete won usopen before I was even born

 

[RS]

I think all of the 3 are very close in ability. It's short-sighted to boil down Lend's career to "8 slams" without taking into effect many factors which make cross era comparisons very difficult.

Lendl revolutionized the game in terms of playing style and fitness/preparation. He reached 8 consecutive USO finals and had the toughest competition out of any ATG, played in very polarized conditions and didn't have the medical advantage modern pros enjoy which have increased longevity across the board in all sports.

Only an ignoramus would think a comparison with Lendl is insulting for Fed (or Novak for that matter).

As Snoop Dogg said, Ivan Lendl was the truth.

Wasn't aware on this

 

[Razer]

Wasn't aware on this

Snoop Dogg "Ivan Lendl was the truth"

American magazine Sport Illustrated has unearthed the world's most unlikely tennis fan. During an interview, rapper Snoop Dogg was asked which sport people would be surprised to know he liked. He replied: "Tennis. I used to like Ivan Lendl. He was sharp. An old schooler. Make it happen...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[RS]

Snoop Dogg "Ivan Lendl was the truth"

American magazine Sport Illustrated has unearthed the world's most unlikely tennis fan. During an interview, rapper Snoop Dogg was asked which sport people would be surprised to know he liked. He replied: "Tennis. I used to like Ivan Lendl. He was sharp. An old schooler. Make it happen...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

I already looked thanks

 

[timnz]

Federer is lucky he played in the Mug era. If prime Fed were playing today, he wouldn't win a single Slam in his entire career.

Seriously? Federer held 2 match points on serve against Djokovic in the 2019 Wimbledon final weeks before his 38th birthday. now you are saying that prime fed wouldn’t win a single slam?

 

[Holmes]

Of course not

I watched some of his famous matches I did not watch Pete

I trust numbers. I can't watch every single gen. Pete won usopen before I was even born

Thanks for confirming. I believe this conversation is now moot.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Thanks for confirming. I believe this conversation is now moot.

nope

you proved nothing here

 

[mike danny]

Most Nolefams are still in disbelief, even after someone pointed out 'The Emperor's New Clothes' on Fed.

Most of us are still in disbelief you're trashing Fed's competition after Nole has had to content with the weakest crop of players of all time.

 

[Holmes]

Most of us are still in disbelief you're trashing Fed's competition after Nole has had to content with the weakest crop of players of all time.

Federer, Nadal, Murray are all significantly weaker than Roddick, Hewitt and Baghdatis. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Neptune]

Most of us are still in disbelief you're trashing Fed's competition after Nole has had to content with the weakest crop of players of all time.

What kind of argument is that? Do you even understand the two simple charts in the OP? I revised them to make it even simpler, btw.

 

[mike danny]

What kind of argument is that? Do you even understand the two simple charts in the OP? I revised them to make it even simpler, btw.

I also made it extremely simple

 

[Born_to_slice]

But if you wanna play games like this, Fed is more popular, richer, and more liked.

1 and 3 are kinda the same thing. Anyway, all that crap just makes it more impressive that Novak has come on top.

 

[Lleytonstation]

1 and 3 are kinda the same thing. Anyway, all that crap just makes it more impressive that Novak has come on top.

Easier when you have less sponsorships and media to deal with...

 

[gamelovergold]

OK. So in my previous post I defended Federer, only to read things like this. To defend Federer you don't need to unrealistically overrate him, you know?

Federer has a losing H2H against Nadovic and less Slams than both, including a losing H2H vs. Nadal when he was at his peak in 2004-2007 and 2004-2009.

That ship has sailed. Federer is the third greatest tennis player of all time. To insist in the notion that he possesses the best peak in the history of the game when all evidence points out to the contrary is the epitome of unobjecticity.

Certainly ship has sailed . Fedrer peak was dominant but what about before and after that weak. 2012 to 2017 he was unable to win slams. That cost him the slam race. No matter how you look the picture it is clear fedrer is 3rd among big 3. Beautiful play and religious experience is good only if you win. When you lose the race this become consolation price that fedrer was most talented graceful among big3. And by the way more rich also but all the money in the world can buy 1 slam.
So it is time to thanks rafa effort and when novak retires his efforts.

 

[SonnyT]

Djokovic has had a more accomplished career mainly because he's a much better 30+ year old player but I will not let this Fed disrespect stand. Not only did he revolutionize the way the game was played but nobody will ever touch Peak Fed.
I don't care about competition, 23 out of 24 semi appearances, 20 out of 24 Finals appearances and 15 slams in 24 appearances from 2004-2009 with 3 of those losses to ClayGOAT is absurd levels of success. Even post-Peak Fed was pushing Peak Djokovic to the limit in 2011. Put some respect to this mans' name.

But who did peak Federer beat in the slams?

 

[Neptune]

Nole over Fed, vs Fed over Lendl.
Most Nolefams are still in disbelief, even after someone pointed out 'The Emperor's New Clothes' on Fed.
When will people realize that tennis careers can be inflated, and understand how and why?

Career​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Nole​	202 (123-79) 60.89%​	15.09%​	373 (258-115) 69.17%​	27.86%​	966 (860-106) 89.03%​	72.14%​	1339 (1118-221) 83.50%​
Fed​	179 (104-75) 58.10%​	11.73%​	347 (224-123) 64.55%​	22.74%​	1179 (1027-152) 87.11%​	77.26%​	1526 (1251-275) 81.98%​
Lendl​	158 (95-63) 60.13%​	12.05%​	257 (164-93) 63.81%​	19.60%​	1054 (905-149) 85.86%​	80.40%​	1311 (1069-242) 81.54%​

Peak​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​	Opp Rank​	Opp Elo​
Nole 11-16​	91 (66-25) 72.53%​	19.08%​	174 (140-34) 80.46%​	36.48%​	303 (287-16) 94.72%​	63.52%​	477 (427-50) 89.52%​	18​	2086​
Fed 04-09​	67 (44-23) 65.67%​	13.59%​	121 (91-30) 75.21%​	24.54%​	372 (351-21) 94.35%​	75.46%​	493 (442-51) 89.66%​	26​	2017​
Lendl 84-89​	74 (52-22) 70.27%​	15.81%​	116 (83-33) 71.55%​	24.79%​	352 (333-19) 94.60%​	75.21%​	468 (416-52) 88.89%​	27​	2014​

Fed in his era 2004-09 against top5: 44-23
13-21 against baby Rafa-Murray-Nole (6-12 against Rafa, 2-4 against Murray, 5-5 against Nole)
31-2 against the rest
Note: time spent in the top-5 — Fed 20%, “babies” 28.8% (Rafa 15.8%, Murray 4.4%, Nole 8.6%), everyone else (Hewitt/Roddick, etc.) 51.2%.

 

[GoatNo1]

i dont know vs lendl BUT it is absolutely bigger gap between nole and fed as previous GOAT than between fed and sampras as the GOAT that fed took over!

if you look at no1 and slams as tier 1 GOAT criteria:

YE#1
nole 8 (+3; +60%)
sampras 6 (+1; +20%)
fed 5

weeks at #1
nole 428 (+118; +38%)
fed 310 (+24; +8%)
sampras 286

slams
nole 24 (+4; +20%)
fed 20 (+6; +43%)
sampras 14

CGS
nole 3 (+2)
fed 1 (+1)
sampras 0

so
No1e Fed Samras

YE#1: 8 > 6 > 5
weeks at #1: 428 > 310 > 286
slams: 24 > 20 > 14
CGS: 3 > 1 > 0

 

[jackson vile]

This is really sad at this point.

But if you wanna play games like this, Fed is more popular, richer, and more liked.

But… he’s still not number one at being richer or more popular/liked, there are lots of richer and more popular/liked people.

As for Novak, he’s outright the best in the history of tennis, and that’s the whole entire point of competition in the first place.

 

[JMR]

slams
nole 24 (+4; +20%)
fed 20 (+6; +43%)
sampras 14

This is not entirely accurate. Some additional context will explain why this factor is actually a reasonable argument for Federer's GOAT status, at least for those who view winning slams as the most important measure of greatness.

There is no dispute that Djokovic holds the all-time record for most slams won. That's an objective fact. So if one's rubric is nothing more than, "Slam record = GOAT," then Djokovic is the GOAT. This is a simple and convenient rule that, among other things, will tend to ensure that the GOAT is a current or relatively recent player, not some relic from eons ago, since records move in only one direction. But note that the choice of GOAT criterion or criteria is subjective, not objective. (I am not arguing that the slam count is the only tennis stat working in Djokovic's favor. The topic of this post is just limited to the different ways the slam count stat can be viewed.)

Here's a more complete look at the progression of the slam record:
Tilden -- 10
Emerson -- 12; +20% (2 absolute)
Sampras -- 14; + 17% (2 absolute)
Federer -- 20; +43% (6 absolute)
Nadal -- 22; +10% (2 absolute)
Djokovic -- 24; +9% (2 absolute)

The degree to which Federer extended the slam record is far in excess of anyone else's extension, in both relative and absolute terms. Does this matter? It does if one believes that the essential mark of greatness is how far beyond the previous standards an athlete can progress. According to this view, extending a record far into unknown territory can be more important than ultimately holding the record, especially since future performance naturally tends to build on and surpass past performances.

Here's an example from another sport. Babe Ruth is still considered by some as a candidate for the greatest baseball player, greatest slugger, and/or greatest home run hitter ever, even though he played a century ago and his most important record was broken a half-century ago. This is because Hank Aaron (we'll leave out Barry Bonds and his steroid stats) beat Ruth by about 6% when he extended the home run record from 714 to 755. But the HR record before Ruth was 138. Ruth more than quintupled the old mark! That's an increase of more than 400%. (The "dead ball era" was a factor here, of course, but so was a quantum leap in player excellence.) Nothing like that had happened before, and nothing like it has happened since. I'm not suggesting that Federer's improvement of his standard was comparable to Ruth's, but it's true that being a pioneer, and pushing a sport far beyond its previous performance boundaries, is often recognized as an important factor in determining greatness.

 

[SonnyT]

Nole over Fed, vs Fed over Lendl.
Most Nolefams are still in disbelief, even after someone pointed out 'The Emperor's New Clothes' on Fed.
When will people realize that tennis careers can be inflated, and understand how and why?

Career​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Nole​	202 (123-79) 60.89%​	15.09%​	373 (258-115) 69.17%​	27.86%​	966 (860-106) 89.03%​	72.14%​	1339 (1118-221) 83.50%​
Fed​	179 (104-75) 58.10%​	11.73%​	347 (224-123) 64.55%​	22.74%​	1179 (1027-152) 87.11%​	77.26%​	1526 (1251-275) 81.98%​
Lendl​	158 (95-63) 60.13%​	12.05%​	257 (164-93) 63.81%​	19.60%​	1054 (905-149) 85.86%​	80.40%​	1311 (1069-242) 81.54%​

Peak​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​	Opp Rank​	Opp Elo​
Nole 11-16​	91 (66-25) 72.53%​	19.08%​	174 (140-34) 80.46%​	36.48%​	303 (287-16) 94.72%​	63.52%​	477 (427-50) 89.52%​	18​	2086​
Fed 04-09​	67 (44-23) 65.67%​	13.59%​	121 (91-30) 75.21%​	24.54%​	372 (351-21) 94.35%​	75.46%​	493 (442-51) 89.66%​	26​	2017​
Lendl 84-89​	74 (52-22) 70.27%​	15.81%​	116 (83-33) 71.55%​	24.79%​	352 (333-19) 94.60%​	75.21%​	468 (416-52) 88.89%​	27​	2014​

Thank you, Neptune, for finding another way of saying Djokovic was the best, pre-Carlos!

 

[GoatNo1]

This is not entirely accurate. Some additional context will explain why this factor is actually a reasonable argument for Federer's GOAT status, at least for those who view winning slams as the most important measure of greatness.

There is no dispute that Djokovic holds the all-time record for most slams won. That's an objective fact. So if one's rubric is nothing more than, "Slam record = GOAT," then Djokovic is the GOAT. This is a simple and convenient rule that, among other things, will tend to ensure that the GOAT is a current or relatively recent player, not some relic from eons ago, since records move in only one direction. But note that the choice of GOAT criterion or criteria is subjective, not objective. (I am not arguing that the slam count is the only tennis stat working in Djokovic's favor. The topic of this post is just limited to the different ways the slam count stat can be viewed.)

Here's a more complete look at the progression of the slam record:
Tilden -- 10
Emerson -- 12; +20% (2 absolute)
Sampras -- 14; + 17% (2 absolute)
Federer -- 20; +43% (6 absolute)
Nadal -- 22; +10% (2 absolute)
Djokovic -- 24; +9% (2 absolute)

The degree to which Federer extended the slam record is far in excess of anyone else's extension, in both relative and absolute terms. Does this matter? It does if one believes that the essential mark of greatness is how far beyond the previous standards an athlete can progress. According to this view, extending a record far into unknown territory can be more important than ultimately holding the record, especially since future performance naturally tends to build on and surpass past performances.

Here's an example from another sport. Babe Ruth is still considered by some as a candidate for the greatest baseball player, greatest slugger, and/or greatest home run hitter ever, even though he played a century ago and his most important record was broken a half-century ago. This is because Hank Aaron (we'll leave out Barry Bonds and his steroid stats) beat Ruth by about 6% when he extended the home run record from 714 to 755. But the HR record before Ruth was 138. Ruth more than quintupled the old mark! That's an increase of more than 400%. (The "dead ball era" was a factor here, of course, but so was a quantum leap in player excellence.) Nothing like that had happened before, and nothing like it has happened since. I'm not suggesting that Federer's improvement of his standard was comparable to Ruth's, but it's true that being a pioneer, and pushing a sport far beyond its previous performance boundaries, is often recognized as an important factor in determining greatness.

slams are not all that matter. i do not think that rafa ever was the GOAT despite 22>20=20. and i do not think he is greater than fed. on major GOAT polls he is distant 3rd, and for example, all 3 last GOATs said that YE#1 is greater accomplishment than slam title!

 

[JMR]

slams are not all that matter. i do not think that rafa ever was the GOAT despite 22>20=20. and i do not think he is greater than fed.

I don't really think of Rafa as a transient GOAT either. That's one of the ironies of his career: all that time chasing Federer, yet it never really paid off in terms of a consensus of supremacy for him. But he was the all-time slam record holder for a brief period, so an analysis of the progression of the record must acknowledge that.

 

[gamelovergold]

I don't really think of Rafa as a transient GOAT either. That's one of the ironies of his career: all that time chasing Federer, yet it never really paid off in terms of a consensus of supremacy for him. But he was the all-time slam record holder for a brief period, so an analysis of the progression of the record must acknowledge that.

Rafa was sandwiched between two of the greatest player of all time Roger and Novak.
His mastery of clay surface really helped him to fight Fedrer and Novak.
Difficulty wise Rafa 22 slams are better than roger 20 and novak 24 .
But Given huge records novak broke in all other catogries my vote will be for Novak as best among big 3.
For Roger vs Rafa decision is hard to take and there is no clear cut answer

 

[junkieballer]

Damn, Lendl was good.

 

[junkieballer]

Nole over Fed, vs Fed over Lendl.
Most Nolefams are still in disbelief, even after someone pointed out 'The Emperor's New Clothes' on Fed.
When will people realize that tennis careers can be inflated, and understand how and why?

Career​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Nole​	202 (123-79) 60.89%​	15.09%​	373 (258-115) 69.17%​	27.86%​	966 (860-106) 89.03%​	72.14%​	1339 (1118-221) 83.50%​
Fed​	179 (104-75) 58.10%​	11.73%​	347 (224-123) 64.55%​	22.74%​	1179 (1027-152) 87.11%​	77.26%​	1526 (1251-275) 81.98%​
Lendl​	158 (95-63) 60.13%​	12.05%​	257 (164-93) 63.81%​	19.60%​	1054 (905-149) 85.86%​	80.40%​	1311 (1069-242) 81.54%​

Peak​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​	Opp Rank​	Opp Elo​
Nole 11-16​	91 (66-25) 72.53%​	19.08%​	174 (140-34) 80.46%​	36.48%​	303 (287-16) 94.72%​	63.52%​	477 (427-50) 89.52%​	18​	2086​
Fed 04-09​	67 (44-23) 65.67%​	13.59%​	121 (91-30) 75.21%​	24.54%​	372 (351-21) 94.35%​	75.46%​	493 (442-51) 89.66%​	26​	2017​
Lendl 84-89​	74 (52-22) 70.27%​	15.81%​	116 (83-33) 71.55%​	24.79%​	352 (333-19) 94.60%​	75.21%​	468 (416-52) 88.89%​	27​	2014​

Borg 1976-81:

vs all 405-44 (90.2%)
vs top5 50-15 (76.9%)
T5 weight 14.48%
vs top10 89-21 (74.2%)
T10 weight 26.7%
opponent rank 29.5
opponent ELO 2026

slightly better win percentage but much worse opponents.

Novak is head and shoulders above everyone else.

 

[junkieballer]

2024-25 Sinner is playing at peak Novak level, although only for 2 years:

91.6% matches won
18.2% of his matches were against top5
32.2% of his matches were against top10s

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Many of today's players would crash out in the Wimbledon 1st week in the 90s. They're largely one-dimensional baseline bots who have no transition game to speak of.

Indeed. Most are so net/strategy ignorant, that its doubtful any would survive the 1st round.

That servebots dominated the 90s is a misconception.

Sampras was a pretty complete player actually, a true all-courter. Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Chang, Guga etc. were not servebots.

Becker had one of the best serves, but was known for being an excellent serve and volley player, which was evident to anyone who watched tennis in that period...and was not an advocate for standing at the baselne, waiting for someone to miss.

 

[SonnyT]

2024-25 Sinner is playing at peak Novak level, although only for 2 years:

91.6% matches won
18.2% of his matches were against top5
32.2% of his matches were against top10s

This was misleading, because there are only 2 world-class players, and Sinner is 2-7 vs Alcaraz the last 2 years.