Which player was hurt most by each of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

[itoaxel]

If you remove each of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic independently which player is helped the most, and hence which was hurt the most by each particular player.

First who would win Federer's slams. My guesses would be:

2003 Wimbledon- Roddick
2004 Australian- numerous possabilities
2004 Wimbledon- Roddick
2004 U.S Open- Agassi
2005 Wimbledon- Hewitt
2005 U.S Open- Hewitt or Agassi
2006 Australian- numerous possabilities
2006 Wimbledon- Nadal
2006 U.S Open- numerous possabilities
2007 Australian- Gonzalez
2007 Wimbledon- Nadal
2007 U.S Open- Djokovic
2008 U.S Open- Djokovic
2009 French- Del Potro
2009 Wimbledon- Roddick
2010 Australian Open- no idea, nobody was that good here at all besides Federer, Murray by default I guess
2012 Wimbledon- Murray

Slams Federer played a role in that would have a different winner without him: 2009 U.S Open- Djokovic

So based on that it would seem Federer costed:

Roddick- 3 additional slams (all at Wimbledon), and maybe an extra U.S Open too.
Hewitt- 1 or 2 slams
Agassi- 1 or 2 slams
Murray- 2 slams
Djokovic- 3 U.S Opens
Nadal- 2 Wimbledons

So Roddick is probably the winner.


Now onto Nadal:

2005 French- Federer
2006 French- Federer
2007 French- Federer
2008 French- Djokovic
2008 Wimbledon- Federer
2009 Australian Open- Federer
2010 French- Soderling
2010 Wimbledon- Murray
2010 U.S Open- Djokovic
2011 French- Federer
2012 French- Djokovic
2013 French- Djokovic
2013 U.S Open- Djokovic
2014 French- Djokovic

Slams Nadal didn't win but helped determine the final winner: None


Looks like contrary to popular belief it might be Djokovic as the winner here, and not Federer. The 2008 French Open is the swing one, I think Djokovic would have beaten Federer there but others might disagree. Either way a virtual tie between the two.


Now Djokovic:

2008 Australian Open- Tsonga
2011 Australian Open- Federer
2011 Wimbledon- Nadal
2011 U.S Open- Nadal
2012 Australian Open- Nadal
2013 Australian Open- Wawrinka or Murray
2014 Wimbledon- Federer

Slams Djokovic didn't win but helped determine the winner of: None

So Nadal probably gains 3 slams, Federer 2, Tsonga 1, Wawrinka or Murray 1. So Nadal would be the one hurt the most. Some might give Federer Australian Open 2008 though, which would make it 3 for both Nadal and Federer.

 

[itoaxel]

The one I was most curious about was Murray, and the breakdown surprised me a bit. It appears he wasnt hurt much at all by any 1 guy individually (probably). In his case it is likely more a collective thing. If you remove 2 out of 3, or all 3 of the Federer/Nadal/ Djokovic trio he gains a ton of slams, but not many by just removing any particular 1.

 

[Federer302]

.

First who would win Federer's slams. My guesses would be:

2003 Wimbledon- Roddick
2004 Australian- Nalbandian
2004 Wimbledon- Roddick
2004 U.S Open- Agassi
2005 Wimbledon- Hewitt
2005 U.S Open- Agassi
2006 Australian- Baghdatis (set and a break up against TMF!)
2006 Wimbledon- Ancic
2006 U.S Open- Blake
2007 Australian- Gonzalez
2007 Wimbledon- Nadal
2007 U.S Open- Djokovic
2008 U.S Open- Djokovic
2009 French- Del Potro
2009 Wimbledon- Roddick
2010 Australian Open- Davydenko
2012 Wimbledon- Murray



Now onto Nadal:

2005 French- Federer
2006 French- Federer
2007 French- Federer
2008 French- Djokovic
2008 Wimbledon- Federer
2009 Australian Open- Federer
2010 French- Soderling
2010 Wimbledon- Berdych
2010 U.S Open- Djokovic
2011 French- Federer
2012 French- Djokovic
2013 French- Djokovic
2013 U.S Open- Djokovic
2014 French- Djokovic




Djokovic:

2008 Australian Open- Tsonga
2011 Australian Open- Federer
2011 Wimbledon- Tsonga
2011 U.S Open- Nadal
2012 Australian Open- Nadal
2013 Australian Open- Wawrinka
2014 Wimbledon- Federer

edit Itoaxel's additon. Blake takes 2006 US Open ( 2 match win streak against Roddick heading in!)
Nat F. Your right 2004 Aus goes to Nalby

 

[itoaxel]

Davydenko for the 2006 U.S Open? He is 1-5 vs Roddick and 0-6 vs Blake. Now he is 1-1 vs Roddick post 2005 so I could see him maybe beating him if it were only him. However no way he beats Blake or Blake/Roddick back to back. Not to mention his performance vs Federer in the semis was utterly terrible. I don't know what was wrong with him, but he didn't show up to play professional tennis that day, while Blake in the quarters and Roddick in the final certainly showed up.

He would have a way better shot at the 2006 Australian Open title.

 

[mike danny]

I would add some changes:

Roddick IMO is at least 80% certain to win USO 2006. I mean he had great records against both Davydenko and Blake, one of them being the potential finalist, removing Federer. I think he would have definetely won against either of them. Don't see those 2 beating him to be honest. So I give the USO 2006 to Roddick. That makes 4 slams denied by Fed.

AO 2010 I think it is definetely Murray. His other potential candidates for the final would have been Tsonga and Davydenko. I think Murray beats whoever shows in the final between those 2. I don't think a tired Tsonga would trouble Murray, against whom he already has a horrible record. Davydenko is a question mark. He was in great form at the start of 2010. I give him a lot more chances of reaching the final than Tsonga. But I still see Murray handling him in 4 sets. So I give AO 2010 to Murray.

I also give AO 2006 to Davydenko. He was in very good form and gave Federer all he could handle in their QF match. His next 2 opponents would have been Kiefer and Baghdatis, both beatable opponents. So given his SF and F oppoents I think Davydenko would have grabbed his only slam without Fed in his way. I also think Davydenko handles Haas in the QF. By removing Federer Haas would be Davy's QF opponent.

I agree with the rest. Though USO 2004 would be 50/50 between Hewitt and Agassi. Hewitt was in good form himslef as well. Didn't drop a set on his way to the final.

 

[NatF]

.

First who would win Federer's slams. My guesses would be:

2003 Wimbledon- Roddick
2004 Australian- Safin
2004 Wimbledon- Roddick
2004 U.S Open- Agassi
2005 Wimbledon- Hewitt
2005 U.S Open- Agassi
2006 Australian- Baghdatis
2006 Wimbledon- Ancic
2006 U.S Open- Davydenko
2007 Australian- Gonzalez
2007 Wimbledon- Nadal
2007 U.S Open- Djokovic
2008 U.S Open- Djokovic
2009 French- Del Potro
2009 Wimbledon- Roddick
2010 Australian Open- Davydenko
2012 Wimbledon- Murray



Now onto Nadal:

2005 French- Federer
2006 French- Federer
2007 French- Federer
2008 French- Djokovic
2008 Wimbledon- Federer
2009 Australian Open- Federer
2010 French- Soderling
2010 Wimbledon- Berdych
2010 U.S Open- Djokovic
2011 French- Federer
2012 French- Djokovic
2013 French- Djokovic
2013 U.S Open- Djokovic
2014 French- Djokovic




Djokovic:

2008 Australian Open- Tsonga
2011 Australian Open- Federer
2011 Wimbledon- Tsonga
2011 U.S Open- Nadal
2012 Australian Open- Nadal
2013 Australian Open- Wawrinka
2014 Wimbledon- Federer

Safin was exhausted in the AO 04 final. Nalbandian or Hewitt beat him for that one. Unless they tire each other out.

I'd give Roddick USO 06 and maybe 07. No way does Davydenko beat Roddick.

 

[mike danny]

Safin was exhausted in the AO 04 final. Nalbandian or Hewitt beat him for that one. Unless they tire each other out.

I'd give Roddick USO 06 and maybe 07. No way does Davydenko beat Roddick.

I also think 2005 USO could go to Hewitt,while 2004 USO is 50/50.

 

[tennis_pro]

What a brilliant thread. I'ma add nothing to it.

 

[NatF]

I also think 2005 USO could go to Hewitt,while 2004 USO is 50/50.

I missed that. Yeah Hewitt wins USO 05 but Agassi edges 04 IMO.

 

[MichaelNadal]

If you remove each of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic independently which player is helped the most, and hence which was hurt the most by each particular player.

First who would win Federer's slams. My guesses would be:

2003 Wimbledon- Roddick
2004 Australian- numerous possabilities
2004 Wimbledon- Roddick
2004 U.S Open- Agassi
2005 Wimbledon- Hewitt
2005 U.S Open- Hewitt or Agassi
2006 Australian- numerous possabilities
2006 Wimbledon- Nadal
2006 U.S Open- numerous possabilities
2007 Australian- Gonzalez
2007 Wimbledon- Nadal
2007 U.S Open- Djokovic
2008 U.S Open- Djokovic
2009 French- Del Potro
2009 Wimbledon- Roddick
2010 Australian Open- no idea, nobody was that good here at all besides Federer, Murray by default I guess
2012 Wimbledon- Murray

Slams Federer played a role in that would have a different winner without him: 2009 U.S Open- Djokovic

So based on that it would seem Federer costed:

Roddick- 3 additional slams (all at Wimbledon), and maybe an extra U.S Open too.
Hewitt- 1 or 2 slams
Agassi- 1 or 2 slams
Murray- 2 slams
Djokovic- 3 U.S Opens
Nadal- 2 Wimbledons

So Roddick is probably the winner.


Now onto Nadal:

2005 French- Federer
2006 French- Federer
2007 French- Federer
2008 French- Djokovic
2008 Wimbledon- Federer
2009 Australian Open- Federer
2010 French- Soderling
2010 Wimbledon- Murray
2010 U.S Open- Djokovic
2011 French- Federer
2012 French- Djokovic
2013 French- Djokovic
2013 U.S Open- Djokovic
2014 French- Djokovic

Slams Nadal didn't win but helped determine the final winner: None


Looks like contrary to popular belief it might be Djokovic as the winner here, and not Federer. The 2008 French Open is the swing one, I think Djokovic would have beaten Federer there but others might disagree. Either way a virtual tie between the two.


Now Djokovic:

2008 Australian Open- Tsonga
2011 Australian Open- Federer
2011 Wimbledon- Nadal
2011 U.S Open- Nadal
2012 Australian Open- Nadal
2013 Australian Open- Wawrinka or Murray
2014 Wimbledon- Federer

Slams Djokovic didn't win but helped determine the winner of: None

So Nadal probably gains 3 slams, Federer 2, Tsonga 1, Wawrinka or Murray 1. So Nadal would be the one hurt the most. Some might give Federer Australian Open 2008 though, which would make it 3 for both Nadal and Federer.

Perfectly done, and a great thought for a thread.

 

[itoaxel]

I would give Agassi the 04 U.S Open for sure since Hewitt ate 2 bagels from Federer in the final, while Agassi was actually close to beating him, and was close to beating him in most of their hard court matches that year. As for the Agassi-Hewitt matchup, Agassi had beaten Hewitt in Cincinnati and Hewitt said afterword he played well. The previous match between Hewitt and Agassi on hard courts, and at the U.S open, were won by Agassi. Agassi had figured out how to play Hewitt. All signs point to an Agassi win that year.

2005 is closer. I am not even sure on Hewitt winning that year come to think of it. The final and semis were very comparable matches. I think that one is probably 50-50, while 2004 is a likely Agassi win.

As for the 2006 U.S Open I agree Davydenko wasn't winning it. However I think Blake would have had a decent shot, and atleast as good a shot as Roddick. Remember he beat Roddick in their only meeting that summer, was at his career peak and ranked higher than Roddick, and the quarterfinal was if anything a higher quality match than the final and equally competitive.

 

[NatF]

I would give Agassi the 04 U.S Open for sure since Hewitt ate 2 bagels from Federer in the final, while Agassi was actually close to beating him, and was close to beating him in most of their hard court matches that year. As for the Agassi-Hewitt matchup, Agassi had beaten Hewitt in Cincinnati and Hewitt said afterword he played well. The previous match between Hewitt and Agassi on hard courts, and at the U.S open, were won by Agassi. Agassi had figured out how to play Hewitt. All signs point to an Agassi win that year.

2005 is closer. I am not even sure on Hewitt winning that year come to think of it. The final and semis were very comparable matches. I think that one is probably 50-50, while 2004 is a likely Agassi win.

As for the 2006 U.S Open I agree Davydenko wasn't winning it. However I think Blake would have had a decent shot, and atleast as good a shot as Roddick. Remember he beat Roddick in their only meeting that summer, was at his career peak and ranked higher than Roddick, and the quarterfinal was if anything a higher quality match than the final and equally competitive.

Federer turned his game up a level in the final. Agassi was competitive but some of that might of been the wind equalizing things. I agree that based on their most recent match Agassi was likely to beat Hewitt though.

In 2005 I think Hewitt takes him, I don't think Agassi could beat him in less than 5 and I don't think he had the fitness to go toe to toe with Lleyton for that long. In 2006 Roddick wins that, no way does Blake in his first ever slam final top Roddick.

 

[SpinToWin]

I agree with most of it (except some of the things others pointed out) but I strongly disagree with Djokovic winning the 2008 French Open… That would have been Federer's for the taking.

 

[itoaxel]

Federer turned his game up a level in the final. Agassi was competitive but some of that might of been the wind equalizing things. I agree that based on their most recent match Agassi was likely to beat Hewitt though.

In 2005 I think Hewitt takes him, I don't think Agassi could beat him in less than 5 and I don't think he had the fitness to go toe to toe with Lleyton for that long. In 2006 Roddick wins that, no way does Blake in his first ever slam final top Roddick.

Most are agreeing Gonzalez in his first ever slam final in 2007 at the Australian Open beats Roddick, so why would Blake be less likely? I agree Gonzales's playing level at the 2007 Australian Open was probably even higher than Blake's at the 2006 U.S Open, and probably higher than Blake ever produced (although he took a set off an extremely in form Federer which Gonzalez failed to do at the Australian Open, albeit playing less well in the final than prior rounds). However Roddick's playing level at the 2007 Australian Open wasn't even that high and lower than the 2006 U.S Open, but obviously people going with Gonzalez (who has a poor record overall vs Roddick) are showing people see him handling the pressure. So why wouldn't Blake be able to do the same? It is not like Gonzalez is any tougher mentally or any less consistent in general than Blake. I still could see Blake winning the 06 U.S Open final for sure. I don't think he is someone that would be scared of that situation and unable to win vs an opponent he was capable of beating at the time, which Roddick was. I don't see it a foregone conclusion, 50/50 really. Davydenko is also more likely to beat Roddick than Blake, but as Davydenko would play Blake first, that is irrelevant.

I don't know why Agassi in 2005 couldn't possibly beat Hewitt in less than 5, say in 4 sets. Had he held the game up 4-2, 30-0, 3rd set in the final with Federer, there is a decent shot he wins that match in 4 sets. That game changed all the momentum in Federer's favor, and of course Federer is a way tougher opponent than Hewitt. Agassi was also incredibly fit at that stage. He did all kinds of workouts with Gil Reyes, so I don't see him losing a fitness war, or being too tired to win a 5 setter if it came to that. Had Agassi and Hewitt played in the final Agassi would know he was playing someone he beat the last couple times they played on hard courts, and that would give him confidence.

 

[itoaxel]

I agree with most of it (except some of the things others pointed out) but I strongly disagree with Djokovic winning the 2008 French Open… That would have been Federer's for the taking.

2008 French is a tough one, but I wasn't impressed with Federer's play at that French at all. I was impressed with Djokovic's play, especialy in the semis with Djokovic (despite losing in straight sets to Nadal who was way too good for anyone to touch at that event), and much more than Federer. Based on that I would favor Djokovic. That Djokovic has won the majority of his slow court matches with Federer since the start of 2008 also is a factor in his favor, and even if Federer on their only clay meeting that year (a retirement), Monte Carlo is the only 1 of the 4 big clay events that year- Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg, Roland Garros, where his playing level was higher than Djokovic's. So if Federer won the final, it would have to be his pride pushing him to win over Djokovic, or stronger nerves for the final, which is quite possible, as it certainly wouldn't be his superior playing level at that event compared to Djokovic.

 

[NatF]

Most are agreeing Gonzalez in his first ever slam final in 2007 at the Australian Open beats Roddick, so why would Blake be less likely? I agree Gonzales's playing level at the 2007 Australian Open was probably even higher than Blake's at the 2006 U.S Open, and probably higher than Blake ever produced (although he took a set off an extremely in form Federer which Gonzalez failed to do at the Australian Open, albeit playing less well in the final than prior rounds). However Roddick's playing level at the 2007 Australian Open wasn't even that high and lower than the 2006 U.S Open, but obviously people going with Gonzalez (who has a poor record overall vs Roddick) are showing people see him handling the pressure. So why wouldn't Blake be able to do the same? It is not like Gonzalez is any tougher mentally or any less consistent in general than Blake. I still could see Blake winning the 06 U.S Open final for sure. I don't think he is someone that would be scared of that situation and unable to win vs an opponent he was capable of beating at the time, which Roddick was. I don't see it a foregone conclusion, 50/50 really. Davydenko is also more likely to beat Roddick than Blake, but as Davydenko would play Blake first, that is irrelevant.

I don't know why Agassi in 2005 couldn't possibly beat Hewitt in less than 5, say in 4 sets. Had he held the game up 4-2, 30-0, 3rd set in the final with Federer, there is a decent shot he wins that match in 4 sets. That game changed all the momentum in Federer's favor, and of course Federer is a way tougher opponent than Hewitt. Agassi was also incredibly fit at that stage. He did all kinds of workouts with Gil Reyes, so I don't see him losing a fitness war, or being too tired to win a 5 setter if it came to that. Had Agassi and Hewitt played in the final Agassi would know he was playing someone he beat the last couple times they played on hard courts, and that would give him confidence.

So what if most are agreeing? Doesn't mean squat.

And Roddick was playing extremely well at the AO in 2007, he beat Safin who was playing very well, Ancic - again playing well and then crushed Fish making only a handful of errors. People were thinking he might have a shot against Federer.

Roddick was definitely playing as well as Blake was at the USO IMO. Although Blake was definitely at a high level. Federer was near flawless in the final and Roddick pushed him for a while there.

Agassi's back seized up in the 4th set of the final. I imagine the same thing would happen against Hewitt. Not to mention Hewitt arguably came closer to leading Federer 2 sets 1 anyway. He had many set points in the second set which were all saved by monster winners from Federer, and he of course won the third. I think Hewitt wins the USO in 2005 without Federer in a tighter match than a potential 2004 encounter between them.

 

[itoaxel]

You didn't disagree with my picking Gonzalez as the 2007 Australian Open winner either. Or atleast didn't bother voicing it. My only point is if Gonzalez could handle the pressure of a slam final to win (which it seems you don't dispute) Blake could too. Your "first slam final" part seemed to imply that would be a factor. I agree he might have gotten outplayed by Roddick in the 2006 U.S Open final, but I don't think he would have lost due to nerves.

However I don't think Roddick was absolutely back to his very best at the 2006 U.S Open either, just resurgent from the low he dropped to in early 2006 and back to being a contender again. There is a reason Blake ended the year ranked higher, and did better at the WTF than resurgent Roddick too. He was quite possibly just the better player at the time. Blake at his best IMO has better groundstrokes than Roddick, better returns, for sure better movement and athleticsm. I believe he could take down Roddick, just as he did that summer. I am not saying Blake was a certain winner of that final, just saying I think he would have a chance, and it isn't a foregone conclusion for Roddick.

I agree Federer was good in the 2006 final, but he was even better in the quarters IMO, and I found the quarters a higher quality match than the final. Remember Federer is a nightmare matchup for Blake, probably even worse than Roddick. At the WTF when Blake was playing very well he only got a few games in the final. So to push a very in form Federer hard, he obviously was playing at an extremely high level.

 

[NatF]

You didn't disagree with my picking Gonzalez as the 2007 Australian Open winner either. Or atleast didn't bother voicing it. My only point is if Gonzalez could handle the pressure of a slam final to win (which it seems you don't dispute) Blake could to. Your "first slam final" part seemed to imply that would be a factor. I agree he might have gotten outplayed by Roddick in the 2006 U.S Open final, but I don't think he would have lost due to nerves.

However I don't think Roddick was absolutely back to his very best at the 2006 U.S Open either, just resurgent from the low he dropped to in early 2006 and back to being a contender again. There is a reason Blake ended the year ranked higher, and did better at the WTF than Roddick too. He was quite possibly just the better player at the time. Blake at his best IMO has better groundstrokes than Roddick, better returns, for sure better movement and athleticsm. I believe he could take down Roddick, just as he did that summer. I am not saying Blake was a certain winner of that final, just saying I think he would have a chance, and it isn't a foregone conclusion for Roddick.

I agree Federer was good in the 2006 final, but he was even better in the quarters IMO, and I found the quarters a higher quality match than the final. Remember Federer is a nightmare matchup for Blake, probably even worse than Roddick. At the WTF when Blake was playing very well he only got a few games in the final. So to push a very in form Federer hard, he obviously was playing at an extremely high level.

I didn't bother voicing it. I think Roddick had a shot, like I think Blake would of had a shot in the USO final too. Like I also think Roddick of 2007 would have a shot at Djokovic in the 2007 USO final as well - considering his match with Federer was of higher quality.

Maybe I need to watch the QF with Blake again, it was certainly top draw stuff though I feel Federer was at a higher level in the final still.

 

[itoaxel]

The final was an odd match. It was high quality for sure, but Federer has 69 winners to about 30 for Roddick IIRC and yet it still ended up very tight. By the stats it shouldn't have been. i do remember Federer wasting alot of break points in the 2nd and 3rd sets, which helped make the match more competitive, but alot of those were saved by good serving/play from Roddick too. Roddick wins a lot of free points with unreturned serves which don't show up much in the stats, and that would be a big factor against Blake too, especialy as Blake would likely overswing on returns even off huge 1st serves. I think I was more impressed with Blake vs Federer, as the winners and other stats were closer, and there just seemed to be better rallies in general, but I guess a lot of that is since Blake doesn't have a serve anything like Roddick.

 

[NatF]

The final was an odd match. It was high quality for sure, but Federer has 69 winners to about 30 for Roddick IIRC and yet it still ended up very tight. By the stats it shouldn't have been. i do remember Federer wasting alot of break points in the 2nd and 3rd sets, which helped make the match more competitive, but alot of those were saved by good serving/play from Roddick too. Roddick wins a lot of free points with unreturned serves which don't show up much in the stats, and that would be a big factor against Blake too, especialy as Blake would likely overswing on returns even off huge 1st serves. I think I was more impressed with Blake vs Federer, as the winners and other stats were closer, and there just seemed to be better rallies in general, but I guess a lot of that is since Blake doesn't have a serve like Roddick.

Roddick started using his forehand differently after early 2005. He used it more to pressurize and force errors rather than blast winners. He won 99 points (Federer won about 130) and Federer only hit 19 errors. That means Roddick won 80 points with winners or by forcing errors. So while he didn't hit a lot of clean winners he was forcing play a fair bit while also keeping his error count to about 20'ish UE's. He was playing very well.

 

[itoaxel]

Still 99 to 130 points is a huge gap in points won. It shows he did very well to make the final as competitive as he did somehow, by winning nearly all the big points probably. I do believe the points gap in the Blake-Federer match would be much closer than that. Do you have that by chance?

 

[Chanwan]

Generally a solid OP with pretty good picks, but a few problems.

Are we presuming the draw was the same, but just without that specific player? Seems that way to me, but that's kinda wrong (2-3 or 1-3 would be seeded as 1-2 a lot of times leading to very different draws).

Specifically, I think Fed would get at least one of the 2010-2011 US Opens had there been no Rafa - having to play Rafa after a draining 5-setter played a minor part in those matches imo, especially in 2010. And meeting Novak in a slam-final at that point (presuming Novak wasn't already a multi-slam champion), he would have had the mental edge in 2010 at least.

Also, statements like these are very hard to state with any degree of certainty: "Slams Nadal didn't win but helped determine the final winner: None" - again, using Fed as an example, who's to say Fed-Wawa at the AO this year wouldn't have been a 50-50 match or thereabouts? But it's not counted.

 

[NatF]

Still 99 to 130 points is a huge gap in points won. It shows he did very well to make the final as competitive as he did somehow, by winning nearly all the big points probably. I do believe the points gap in the Blake-Federer match would be much closer than that. Do you have that by chance?

Federer was in god mode that match and sets 1 and 4 were blow outs it was 99-126. The points gap is only slightly larger than the one in the USO final of 2013 (102-121).

Federer won 159 points compared to 132. Roddick had a much better ratio of winners/forced errors to unforced errors though I don't have Blake stats etched in my memory quite as well.

 

[kandamrgam]

A tangent,

The player who suffered the most at the hands of Fedalovic combined must be Lleyton Hewitt of Australia! He met Federer 8 times in GS losing all 8. He met Nadal 6 times losing 4. He met Djokovic 5 times losing 4. His combined h2h:

Hewit vs Fedalovic in GS is 3-16 !!

Has any player gone thru Fedalovic more times?

What's even more funny is how unlucky he was in all those meetings. He met them mostly on their fav Slam. Out of the 8 times he met Federer, 6 were at UO and WC losing all 6. Out of the 6 times he met Nadal, 4 were at FO losing all 4. Out of the 5 times he met Djoker, 2 were at AO losing both!!

 

[mike danny]

A tangent,

The player who suffered the most at the hands of Fedalovic combined must be Lleyton Hewitt of Australia! He met Federer 8 times in GS losing all 8. He met Nadal 6 times losing 4. He met Djokovic 5 times losing 4. His combined h2h:

Hewit vs Fedalovic in GS is 3-16 !!

Has any player gone thru Fedalovic more times?

What's even more funny is how unlucky he was in all those meetings. He met them mostly on their fav Slam. Out of the 8 times he met Federer, 6 were at UO and WC losing all 6. Out of the 6 times he met Nadal, 4 were at FO losing all 4. Out of the 5 times he met Djoker, 2 were at AO losing both!!

Well we still have to point out the fact that Hewitt after 2005 was done as a major contender. Hewitt of 2006-present was practically irrelevant, save a few miracle runs, due to all his health issues.

Hewitt of 2001-2002 and 2004-2005 would be more competitive against all Big 4 except at RG. He would be a great adversary at W and USO in particular.

By the way, just a small correction. W and USO are also Hewitt's favorite slams. Yes he did lost to Federer 6 times in them but that was because Federer was much better at them than Hewitt. Hewitt's 2 GS titles came at these 2 events and when he was still at his best in 2004 and 2005 he lost to Federer mainly at W and USO when Lleyton still had chances to add some of these titles.

Juat look in 2004 and 2005 at his results at W and USO: W 2004 QF (lost to Fed), W 2005 SF (lost to Fed), USO 2004 F (lost to Fed) and USO 2005 SF(lost to Fed).

It was mainly Fed who stopped him from adding more W titles and USO titles in 2004 and 2005. But again, only because Federer is close to GOAT at these 2 slams. There isn't really any active player better than Fed at W and USO, so Hewitt was just unlucky to deal with such an obstacle.

 

[kandamrgam]

Well we still have to point out the fact that Hewitt after 2005 was done as a major contender. Hewitt of 2006-present was practically irrelevant, save a few miracle runs, due to all his health issues.

Hewitt of 2001-2002 and 2004-2005 would be more competitive against all Big 4 except at RG. He would be a great adversary at W and USO in particular.

By the way, just a small correction. W and USO are also Hewitt's favorite slams. Yes he did lost to Federer 6 times in them but that was because Federer was much better at them than Hewitt. Hewitt's 2 GS titles came at these 2 events and when he was still at his best in 2004 and 2005 he lost to Federer mainly at W and USO when Lleyton still had chances to add some of these titles.

Juat look in 2004 and 2005 at his results at W and USO: W 2004 QF (lost to Fed), W 2005 SF (lost to Fed), USO 2004 F (lost to Fed) and USO 2005 SF(lost to Fed).

It was mainly Fed who stopped him from adding more W titles and USO titles in 2004 and 2005. But again, only because Federer is close to GOAT at these 2 slams. There isn't really any active player better than Fed at W and USO, so Hewitt was just unlucky to deal with such an obstacle.

1. My argument is that even if it was Karlovic who met Fedalovic 19 times in Majors I would call him the unluckiest guy on tour, though he would most certainly go down to Murray or Roddick or whoever is at the other end. Regardless of Hewitt's shape, he was plain unlucky to have played that many games. Next I can think of is Tsonga who met them 13 times in his career. It's just differently I see it.

2. True Hewitt was done by that age. Just saying why I posted there.

3. What I mean is Hewitt met Fedalovic in Fedalovic's fav Slams. Not Hewitt's. He played Rafa at RG 4 times, Nole at AO twice, and Roger at UO/WC 6 times. So plain unlucky..

 

[NatF]

I think the point is Hewitt would of had good chances to go at least a round further in each of the slams he met the Big 3 in. But yeah Federer really hurt him in 04-05 he would of snatched a few slams.

 

[kandamrgam]

I think the point is Hewitt would of had good chances to go at least a round further in each of the slams he met the Big 3 in. But yeah Federer really hurt him in 04-05 he would of snatched a few slams.

Yup, pretty much.