Who was the Best Male Player in his 20s (winning and competition)?

[Neptune]

ATP Points (points before 2009 have been adjusted)​

​	Nole​	Fed​	Nadal​	Pete​
Total​	111,638​	100,680​	95,106​	74,796​
20​	8,493​	3,315​	8,493​	4,734​
21​	10,060​	4,921​	10,896​	5,840​
22​	8,310​	8,312​	12,682​	7,843​
23​	6,240​	12,036​	9,205​	9,684​
24​	13,630​	12,777​	12,450​	9,199​
25​	12,920​	15,903​	9,595​	9,243​
26​	12,260​	13,642​	6,690​	8,639​
27​	11,360​	10,079​	13,030​	7,438​
28​	16,585​	10,550​	6,835​	5,745​
29​	11,780​	9,145​	5,230​	6,431​

GOAT Points​

​	Nole​	Fed​	Nadal​	Pete​
Total​	542​	491​	459​	425​
20​	28​	4​	38​	16​
21​	37​	12​	47​	28​
22​	33​	33​	61​	55​
23​	26​	71​	48​	63​
24​	76​	69​	67​	55​
25​	66​	84​	48​	46​
26​	62​	74​	31​	58​
27​	60​	42​	67​	43​
28​	91​	56​	34​	31​
29​	63​	46​	18​	30​

To evaluate the actual competition strength a player is facing, stong/weak era/year only tell the possibility, how many times he needs to play strong opponents is the best direct measure, make sense???

​	All matches (win-loss)​	vs Top 5​	vs Top 10​	vs Elo>=2400​	vs Elo>=2200​
Nole​	821 (698-123) 85.02%​	138 (84-54) 60.87%​	251 (176-75) 70.12%​	58 (31-27) 53.47%​	196 (130-66) 66.33%​
Fed​	816 (692-124) 84.80%​	96 (64-32) 66.67%​	182 (131-51) 71.98%​	6 (4-2) 66.67%​	94 (58-36) 61.70%​
Nadal​	764 (643-121) 84.16%​	108 (66-42) 61.11%​	192 (127-65) 66.15%​	45 (22-23) 48.89%​	139 (87-52) 62.59%​
Pete​	764 (621-143) 81.28%​	79 (55-24) 69.62%​	159 (106-53) 66.67%​	0​	67 (44-23) 65.67%​

 

[Neptune]

My first thread after doing my research, welcome your feedback, thanks.

ATP points before 2009 have been adjusted to match the current ATP ranking system.

First 2 charts are very conclusive about winning/points/achievement.
3rd chart provides the most direct measure of the competition strength.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

New user

 

[Neptune]

@Rafa4LifeEver Anyone not starts as new user? Any player not starts as new player?
@InsuranceMan Did you compare the contents?
@Federev Nole peak at mid 2016 (16950 ATP points the record), follow by Fed (15903@2006), Nadal(15390@2009), Murray(12685@2016) and Pete(11005@1997) for the recent 30 years.

 

[InsuranceMan]

Didn’t we literally just have this discussion

 

[Federev]

Novak won the clear majority of his grand slams after turning 28.

That will never change.

 

[nolefam_2024]

This stat makes most sense. Novak was bullying in masters and was still very competitive in slams. I remember between 2011-16 he won 25 masters and at one pt he won 25 out of 51 masters he entered. Fed and Nadal never had that consistency in masters.

Nole won 5 ATP finals and 4 of them were consecutive. Even in ATP finals he was as good as anyone.

Only in slams he was a bit behind fedal. But fed we know why he won more slams in 20s. Roddick Hewitt Nalbandian Daveydenko have been demonstrably worse than Federer Nadal Murray.

 

[Underdog]

Nadal won 13 Slams out of 19 finals played, including a CGS (youngest), whilst having a boatload of long injuries (2009, 2012, 2014), the actual hardest competition in prime Federer followed by prime Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka, a respectable 3 YE#1 and won quite a few epics as well.
The only non-Big 3 opponent that beat Nadal in a Slam final was Stan, and Nadal was injured.
Those major injuries in 09, 12 and 14 did Nadal wrong, going into that slump in 15.
I see where you’re going with those stats and they’re surely respectable, but, all things factored in, I believe Nadal is just behind Federer as the best 2Xyo, maybe even above, if you count other stuff like h2h and some intangibles.

 

[nolefam_2024]

ATP Points (points before 2009 have been adjusted)​

​	Nole​	Fed​	Nadal​	Pete​
Total​	111,638​	100,680​	95,106​	74,796​
20​	8,493​	3,315​	8,493​	4,734​
21​	10,060​	4,921​	10,896​	5,840​
22​	8,310​	8,312​	12,682​	7,843​
23​	6,240​	12,036​	9,205​	9,684​
24​	13,630​	12,777​	12,450​	9,199​
25​	12,920​	15,903​	9,595​	9,243​
26​	12,260​	13,642​	6,690​	8,639​
27​	11,360​	10,079​	13,030​	7,438​
28​	16,585​	10,550​	6,835​	5,745​
29​	11,780​	9,145​	5,230​	6,431​

GOAT Points​

​	Nole​	Fed​	Nadal​	Pete​
Total​	542​	491​	459​	425​
20​	28​	4​	38​	16​
21​	37​	12​	47​	28​
22​	33​	33​	61​	55​
23​	26​	71​	48​	63​
24​	76​	69​	67​	55​
25​	66​	84​	48​	46​
26​	62​	74​	31​	58​
27​	60​	42​	67​	43​
28​	91​	56​	34​	31​
29​	63​	46​	18​	30​

To evaluate the actual competition strength a player is facing, stong/weak era/year only tell the possibility, how many times he needs to play strong opponents is the best direct measure, make sense???

​	All matches (win-loss)​	vs Top 5​	vs Top 10​	vs Elo>=2400​	vs Elo>=2200​
Nole​	698-123 (85.02%)​	84-54 (60.87%)​	176-75 (70.12%)​	31-27 (53.47%)​	130-66 (66.33%)​
Fed​	692-124 (84.80%)​	64-32 (66.67%)​	131-51 (71.98%)​	4-2 (66.67%)​	58-36 (61.70%)​
Nadal​	643-121 (84.16%)​	66-42 (61.11%)​	127-65 (66.15%)​	22-23 (48.89%)​	87-52 (62.59%)​
Pete​	621-143 (81.28%)​	55-24 (69.62%)​	106-53 (66.67%)​	0​	44-23 (65.67%)​

Slams won in 20s

Age	Sampras	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
20	0	0	1	0
21	0	0	1	1
22	2	1	2	0
23	2	3	1	0
24	2	2	3	3
25	1	3	1	1
26	2	3	1	1
27	1	1	2	1
28	1	2	1	3
29	1	1	0	2
Total	12	16	13	12

Masters titles won in 20s.

Age	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
20	0	4	2
21	1	2	2
22	0	3	1
23	3	3	0
24	4	3	5
25	4	1	3
26	2	2	3
27	0	5	4
28	2	1	6
29	1	0	4
Total	17	24	30

ATP Finals titles won in 20s

Connors	Borg	McEnroe	Sampras	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
2	2	4	5	5	0	5

Titles won in 20s

Age	Sampras	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
20	4	1	5	5
21	5	3	6	4
22	8	7	8	5
23	10	11	5	2
24	5	11	7	10
25	8	12	3	6
26	8	8	4	7
27	4	4	10	7
28	5	4	4	11
29	2	5	3	7
Total	59	66	55	61

Federer had highest total tiles and highest slam titles.
Sampras I am not counting his masters since his time masters was not mandatory.
Djokovic had highest masters.
Federer Sampras Djokovic all had equal ATP finals and Nadal had 0.

Federer killed it in slams so he has the edge over Sampras and Nole.
Nole killed in masters and has more titles than Sampras and Nadal.
Sampras had less titles than Nadal as well as less slams.

Federer > Djokovic > Nadal > Sampras

 

[Underdog]

Slams won in 20s

Age	Sampras	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
20	0	0	1	0
21	0	0	1	1
22	2	1	2	0
23	2	3	1	0
24	2	2	3	3
25	1	3	1	1
26	2	3	1	1
27	1	1	2	1
28	1	2	1	3
29	1	1	0	2
Total	12	16	13	12

Masters titles won in 20s.

Age	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
20	0	4	2
21	1	2	2
22	0	3	1
23	3	3	0
24	4	3	5
25	4	1	3
26	2	2	3
27	0	5	4
28	2	1	6
29	1	0	4
Total	17	24	30

ATP Finals titles won in 20s

Connors	Borg	McEnroe	Sampras	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
2	2	4	5	5	0	5

Titles won in 20s

Age	Sampras	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
20	4	1	5	5
21	5	3	6	4
22	8	7	8	5
23	10	11	5	2
24	5	11	7	10
25	8	12	3	6
26	8	8	4	7
27	4	4	10	7
28	5	4	4	11
29	2	5	3	7
Total	59	66	55	61

Federer had highest total tiles and highest slam titles.
Sampras I am not counting his masters since his time masters was not mandatory.
Djokovic had highest masters.
Federer Sampras Djokovic all had equal ATP finals and Nadal had 0.

Federer killed it in slams so he has the edge over Sampras and Nole.
Nole killed in masters and has more titles than Sampras and Nadal.
Sampras had less titles than Nadal as well as less slams.

Federer > Djokovic > Nadal > Sampras

Regardless of who was better or worse, those numbers really show how much that 14-16 stretch cost Nadal. His numbers at 28 and 29 are very hurt.

 

[Neptune]

Federer had highest total tiles and highest slam titles.
Sampras I am not counting his masters since his time masters was not mandatory.
Djokovic had highest masters.
Federer Sampras Djokovic all had equal ATP finals and Nadal had 0.

My first 2 charts very conclusive about winning/points/achievement, correct? why just do a little bean counting?
3rd chart provides the most direct measure of the strength of competition, nobody even looking?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Regardless of who was better or worse, those numbers really show how much that 14-16 stretch cost Nadal. His numbers at 28 and 29 are very hurt.

Definitely. For Rafa the numbers speak for themselves. 2014 AO was turning point in his career. He was at the absolute peak, would have won 3/4 slams and 4/5 slams at RG2014 without injury.

In complete honesty, Nole's 2015 win over him was very very hollow. Even as a nolefam, I had zero doubt Nadal was losing that day. If we knew Nadal would not win in RG then its almost impossible for him to win anywhere.

 

[nolefam_2024]

My first 2 charts very conclusive about winning/points/achievement, correct? why just do a little bean counting?
3rd chart provides the most direct measure of the strength of competition, nobody even looking?

GOAT points is something from UTS. It can't be explained in real conversation. But yes, first chart is conclusive.
GOAT points would probably be a tiebreaker if Fed and Nole had slams in same ballpark. Like Nole and Rafa.
16 slams is 33 % more than Nole's 12 slams. That's impossible to ignore.

 

[Kralingen]

Federer

 

[Underdog]

Definitely. For Rafa the numbers speak for themselves. 2014 AO was turning point in his career. He was at the absolute peak, would have won 3/4 slams and 4/5 slams at RG2014 without injury.

In complete honesty, Nole's 2015 win over him was very very hollow. Even as a nolefam, I had zero doubt Nadal was losing that day. If we knew Nadal would not win in RG then its almost impossible for him to win anywhere.

It’s crazy how reasonable you are sometimes and then you go Ultronian. I agree.
That back injury was very tough. Nadal struggled throughout the whole season and until 2016.

 

[Fabresque]

It’s between Federer and Djokovic.

 

[Neptune]

GOAT points is something from UTS. It can't be explained in real conversation. But yes, first chart is conclusive.
GOAT points would probably be a tiebreaker if Fed and Nole had slams in same ballpark. Like Nole and Rafa.
16 slams is 33 % more than Nole's 12 slams. That's impossible to ignore.

Don't you notice Nole 30 master is 76% more than Fed 17 ? do you try to assign ATP points to all titles?
when your counting is quite off vs any of the first 2 charts, do you try to figure out why?

 

[Neptune]

GOAT points is something from UTS. It can't be explained in real conversation

Why? assigned 8 points for slam, 4 points for master, 2 point for ATP 500, etc, easy peasy.

 

[nolefam_2024]

It’s crazy how reasonable you are sometimes and then you go Ultronian. I agree.
That back injury was very tough. Nadal struggled throughout the whole season and until 2016.

I guess its internet and as an ultronian we were pissed about what happened in 2022. But yes, being logical is only way forward while discussing here.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Don't you notice Nole 30 master is 76% more than Fed 17 ? do you try to assign ATP points to all titles?
when your counting is quite off vs any of the first 2 charts, do you try to figure out why?

Yes its very high. But he has less titles overall. He has less weeks at number 1 overall. Why? Because 4 slams might be a lot less than 17 masters but they hold huge prestige.
Also based on participation rate, they are much closer than 76%.

17 masters out of 76 participated for Federer
30 masters out of 84 participated for Djokovic
Why did Federer participate in less masters?
Fed had most titles meaning he was already winning a lot. And he was undefeated on grass.

Nole was lucky there is 0 grass masters since he lost all non Wimbledon grass events in his 20s.
While Federer won every single non Wimbledon grass events between 2001 and 2010, 10 out 10 in those. And Nole lost all. Played in 4, lost in all 4.

Does that bridge the gap between Nole and Fed?
Federer played in 8 less masters tournaments, while Nole played in 6 less grass tournaments.
Masters is a priority for Nole and Rafa. Since that's where they were first able to reach greatness.

Masters was less of a priority to Fed and absolutely less priority to previous gens. Going forward again, masters may become less important if we breed players like Zverev, Tsitsipas and Medvedev who combined won 1 slam but 13 masters.

You see the discrepancy? 3 players won 13 masters and even 4 ATP finals but could not even win 2 slams? You want us to equate 2 masters to a slam? How do you explain this discrepancy?

 

[Neptune]

Nadal won 13 Slams out of 19 finals played, including a CGS (youngest), whilst having a boatload of long injuries (2009, 2012, 2014), the actual hardest competition in prime Federer followed by prime Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka, a respectable 3 YE#1 and won quite a few epics as well.
The only non-Big 3 opponent that beat Nadal in a Slam final was Stan, and Nadal was injured.
Those major injuries in 09, 12 and 14 did Nadal wrong, going into that slump in 15.
I see where you’re going with those stats and they’re surely respectable, but, all things factored in, I believe Nadal is just behind Federer as the best 2Xyo, maybe even above, if you count other stuff like h2h and some intangibles.

Rafa was great, his 772 matches is only 59 less than Nole 821, and ATP points is 16,532 behind Nole.
Rafa played 139 matches vs tough opponents with Elo>=2200, far more than Fed 94 and Pete 67, BUT a whole 57 less than Nole 196.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Let's see Djokovic Murray between 2007 to 2010. Both won a combined of 11 masters titles and an atp finals but 1 slam.
Slams are far more valuable than 2 masters. How much are they valuable? 3 masters? 4 masters? 10 masters?
I think its somewhere between 4 masters and 10 masters.

 

[Neptune]

Nole was lucky

Nole played 196 (66.33% win) matches vs tough opponents with Elo>=2200, more than double of Fed 94 (62.59%), and you are here saying Nole was lucky??

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Nole played 196 (66.33% win) matches vs tough opponents with Elo>=2200, more than double of Fed 94 (62.59%), and you are here saying Nole was lucky??

Why are you arguing in favor of Djokovic against the most hardcore Djokovic fan there is... lmao

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nole played 196 (66.33% win) matches vs tough opponents with Elo>=2200, more than double of Fed 94 (62.59%), and you are here saying Nole was lucky??

This is cherry picking if highest level. Did you read anything I wrote?

 

[Underdog]

Rafa was great, his 772 matches is only 59 less than Nole 821, and ATP points is 16,532 behind Nole.
Rafa played 139 matches vs tough opponents with Elo>=2200, far more than Fed 94 and Pete 67, BUT a whole 57 less than Nole 196.

I get your point, but sometimes numbers don’t tell us the details. I can’t argue over the ATP points difference, that’s massive, but number of matches, at least to me, don’t mean much when compared to, say, higher Slam count. Also, depite the higher number of Elo-based tough opponents, it’s pretty obvious Nadal had the toughest competition in prime Federer followed by prime Djokovic.
Djokovic took deserved advantage of the generation that followed theirs of Nishikoris and Raonics, Nadal didn’t. Sure, that’s Nadal fault and I’m not saying otherwise, I just mean those numbers can be deceptive.
An interesting point is that, looking at @nachiket nolefam numbers, at correspondent ages, there are 4 ages when Nadal won more Slams (20, 22, 23 and 27) versus 2 for Djokovic (28 and 29 - when Nadal was in a slump and Federer way past his prime). History behind the numbers is important as well.

 

[Neptune]

the most hardcore Djokovic fan there is... lmao

Really? I only focus on numbers and data, which he seems not good at.

This is cherry picking if highest level. Did you read anything I wrote?

I read. Why is that cherry picking? What cherry are you picking to justify weaker era 100680 > 111638 from the strongest era (big 4 era)?

 

[Neptune]

Nadal had the toughest competition in prime Federer followed by prime Djokovic

Look, are you good at analyzing? Nadal 20s from 2006-2015, and Nole 20s from 2007-2016, only 1 year apart.
Ok, from 2006-2015, Nadal-Fed have 31 matches, Nole-Fed have 45 in the same 2006-2015.
Competition is tough only if you actually play a lot of tough opponents, with Elo>=2200 (within top 10 even in the strongest era) for example.

 

[Underdog]

Slams won in 20s

Age	Sampras	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
20	0	0	1	0
21	0	0	1	1
22	2	1	2	0
23	2	3	1	0
24	2	2	3	3
25	1	3	1	1
26	2	3	1	1
27	1	1	2	1
28	1	2	1	3
29	1	1	0	2
Total	12	16	13	12

Masters titles won in 20s.

Age	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
20	0	4	2
21	1	2	2
22	0	3	1
23	3	3	0
24	4	3	5
25	4	1	3
26	2	2	3
27	0	5	4
28	2	1	6
29	1	0	4
Total	17	24	30

ATP Finals titles won in 20s

Connors	Borg	McEnroe	Sampras	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
2	2	4	5	5	0	5

Titles won in 20s

Age	Sampras	Federer	Nadal	Djokovic
20	4	1	5	5
21	5	3	6	4
22	8	7	8	5
23	10	11	5	2
24	5	11	7	10
25	8	12	3	6
26	8	8	4	7
27	4	4	10	7
28	5	4	4	11
29	2	5	3	7
Total	59	66	55	61

Federer had highest total tiles and highest slam titles.
Sampras I am not counting his masters since his time masters was not mandatory.
Djokovic had highest masters.
Federer Sampras Djokovic all had equal ATP finals and Nadal had 0.

Federer killed it in slams so he has the edge over Sampras and Nole.
Nole killed in masters and has more titles than Sampras and Nadal.
Sampras had less titles than Nadal as well as less slams.

Federer > Djokovic > Nadal > Sampras

Looking at these Masters numbers for Federer got me thinking. It feels like a huge underachieving by his standards. So I wondered why.
Here’s my thought:
During the Nadalovic’s gen prime, the “top” competition was tougher, because there were two tier 1 players in Nadal and Djokovic, a few tier 2 players in Federer (wandered between 1 and 2), Murray and later Wawrinka (Delpo maybe), hardly any tier 3 player (I’ll explain later) and more tier 4 like Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga, Cilic. So, there were more players (tiers 1 and 2) capable of battling for success in Bo5/Slams, but less of those players that are not a huge threat in Bo5, but surely strong for Bo3 (tier 3). The tier 4 are players who are very good, don’t get me wrong, but below the level to be constant threats to tier 1 even in Bo3 despite being able to beat them from time to time.
That’s when Federer comes to mind. Federer, during his gen’s prime, was probably the only tier 1 (maybe Nadal in later years and surely on clay), with maybe only Nadal in tier 2 (maybe Djokovic later) and a buch of players in tier 3 like Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Roddick, Davydenko, Ferrero.
Maybe that made it tougher to be dominant in Masters during Fed’s prime, or maybe I’m completely wrong. Don’t know.
Thoughts?

 

[Underdog]

Look, are you good at analyzing? Nadal 20s from 2006-2015, and Nole 20s from 2007-2016, only 1 year apart.
Ok, from 2006-2015, Nadal-Fed have 31 matches, Nole-Fed have 45 in the same 2006-2015.
Competition is tough only if you actually play a lot of tough opponents, with Elo>=2200 (within top 10 even in the strongest era) for example.

I’m sure you agree that playing 06-10 Federer is tougher than playing 11-16 Federer.

 

[Neptune]

I’m sure you agree that playing 06-10 Federer is tougher than playing 11-16 Federer.

06-10 Nole and Nadal both played Fed 19 times. We need to pay attention, gut feeling can be way off.

 

[Pheasant]

20s is very tough. It’s clearly between Federer and Djoker there. I’d probably give Federer the edge, given the era. But it’s very close. Of course, Djoker easily wins the 30s battle by a wide margin.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Looking at these Masters numbers for Federer got me thinking. It feels like a huge underachieving by his standards. So I wondered why.
Here’s my thought:
During the Nadalovic’s gen prime, the “top” competition was tougher, because there were two tier 1 players in Nadal and Djokovic, a few tier 2 players in Federer (wandered between 1 and 2), Murray and later Wawrinka (Delpo maybe), hardly any tier 3 player (I’ll explain later) and more tier 4 like Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga, Cilic. So, there were more players (tiers 1 and 2) capable of battling for success in Bo5/Slams, but less of those players that are not a huge threat in Bo5, but surely strong for Bo3 (tier 3). The tier 4 are players who are very good, don’t get me wrong, but below the level to be constant threats to tier 1 even in Bo3 despite being able to beat them from time to time.
That’s when Federer comes to mind. Federer, during his gen’s prime, was probably the only tier 1 (maybe Nadal in later years and surely on clay), with maybe only Nadal in tier 2 (maybe Djokovic later) and a buch of players in tier 3 like Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Roddick, Davydenko, Ferrero.
Maybe that made it tougher to be dominant in Masters during Fed’s prime, or maybe I’m completely wrong. Don’t know.
Thoughts?

My first thought is your tier list is completely wrong. During Federer's time there were tier 1, Federer and Rafa on natural surfaces. Heritt Roddick and others were firm tier 2. While in Rafa and Nole's time, fedalovic and maybe even Murray were tier 1 while Wawrinka Berdych Ferrer etc were tier 2. The stats bear with this reasoning.
I haven't seen Federer's prime but during Nadal and Djokovic's prime these tier 2 were as unsuccessful as tier 1.

 

[Neptune]

I’d probably give Federer the edge, given the era

Do you mean 2001-2010 is a stronger era than the 2007-2016 big 4 era?

 

[Underdog]

06-10 Nole and Nadal both played Fed 19 times. We need to pay attention, gut feeling can be way off.

Strong point. There’s more than gut feeling to this though, I believe. I think the general idea of Nadal playing prime Federer more comes from the overlap. Federer and Djokovic’s prime never overlapped, but Federer and Nadal’s did. Those encounters held Nadal back in some strong performing, Slam contention years.
Also, it’s a lot biased by Slam finals. Nadal lost his two first WB finals to prime Fed then had to beat him to his 08 WB and 09 AO titles. Not to mention the RG ones. That’s why it’s generally accepted that Nadal faced prime Federer “more”, I think.
Still, strong point. I really wasn’t aware that it was 19-19.

 

[Underdog]

My first thought is your tier list is completely wrong. During Federer's time there were tier 1, Federer and Rafa on natural surfaces. Heritt Roddick and others were firm tier 2. While in Rafa and Nole's time, fedalovic and maybe even Murray were tier 1 while Wawrinka Berdych Ferrer etc were tier 2. The stats bear with this reasoning.
I haven't seen Federer's prime but during Nadal and Djokovic's prime these tier 2 were as unsuccessful as tier 1.

Maybe you got overly attached to the tiers thing. I didn’t put players in tier 2 to downplay them. I meant to be more detailed in distinctions. For me, despite being an ATG in my eyes, Murray was never a strong enough contender to battle as equals with Nadal and Djokovic. Honestly, Federer in the 10s wasn’t much as well. That’s why I put them as tier 2. I’m not saying they’re not good, obviously.
Read carefully again, I think you missed my point. (I say this lightly, I don’t mean to be rude).

 

[Pheasant]

Do you mean 2001-2010 is a stronger era than the 2007-2016 big 4 era?

No. The surfaces were more polarized, prior to 2007, which allowed more upsets. Also, I remember when Masters tourneys were Best of 5 in the finals. And they were referred to as “tune-ups”. The importance of Masters has increased substantially since 2007. Also, the YE title was considered incredibly important, prior to 2010. Many years ago, I recall watching a one hour special on the 2004 WTF. All of the contestants stayed at the same hotel. They were all interviewed. It was a massive deal. And the winner received the same pay as winning a Major. So to me, I look at the YE titles, weeks at #1, total titles, and slam titles as the biggest factors. And slam titles became easier to get, although Federer himself benefitted from this as well.

That being said , I’d put Lendl as a tier-1 ATG, which puts me in the minority by a long shot. But again, I am factoring in eras. Winning 7 slam titles in the 1980s was a massive deal, along with 200+ weeks at #1.

 

[Neptune]

Strong point. There’s more than gut feeling to this though, I believe. I think the general idea of Nadal playing prime Federer more comes from the overlap. Federer and Djokovic’s prime never overlapped, but Federer and Nadal’s did. Those encounters held Nadal back in some strong performing, Slam contention years.
Also, it’s a lot biased by Slam finals. Nadal lost his two first WB finals to prime Fed then had to beat him to his 08 WB and 09 AO titles. Not to mention the RG ones. That’s why it’s generally accepted that Nadal faced prime Federer “more”, I think.
Still, strong point. I really wasn’t aware that it was 19-19.

You pay too much attention to Rafa only, that is why the bias, but understandable because you are a huge Rafa fan.
Look, on non-Clay from 2006-10, Nadal-Fed 8 matches, Nole-Fed 16, double!

 

[Neptune]

I’d put Lendl as a tier-1 ATG, which puts me in the minority by a long shot. But again, I am factoring in eras. Winning 7 slam titles in the 1980s was a massive deal, along with 200+ weeks at #1.

I put Lendl and Connors tie for 4 after big 3,
McEnroe/Sampras/Lendl/Connors/Borg all quite close, 4 of the early big 4.

 

[Razer]

Novak won the clear majority of his grand slams after turning 28.

That will never change.

You crying on Federer will also never change. Daily you cry on 28 as if that is some magic cutoff.

 

[Pheasant]

I put Lendl and Connors tie for 4 after big 3,
McEnroe and Sampras tie for 6, very close to Lendl/Connors.

I like it! Those guys spent a lot of time at #1.

 

[Underdog]

You pay too much attention to Rafa only, that is why the bias, but understandable because you are a huge Rafa fan.
Look, on non-Clay from 2006-10, Nadal-Fed 8 matches, Nole-Fed 16, double!

Would you say the opposite? Like: “Look, on non-hard from 06-10, Nole-Fed 3 matches, Nadal-Fed 14, more than four times!”?
It’s weird to treat clay as some off the records surface.
Also, if you include 04 and 05, which were Fed’s prime, Nadal faces him 22 times, 18 of which were finals. Against 19 matches for Djokovic, with 5 finals.
It’s obvious that Nadal had significantly more success on clay early on leading to more matches against Fed on clay, but the opposite could be said about Novak and hard. If anything, Nadal managed more meeting on hard alone than Djokovic out of hard, as well as three WB meetings.

 

[Underdog]

You pay too much attention to Rafa only, that is why the bias, but understandable because you are a huge Rafa fan.
Look, on non-Clay from 2006-10, Nadal-Fed 8 matches, Nole-Fed 16, double!

And sure, the clay dominance is what made Rafa able to go 12-6 in finals against prime Federer, but it doesn’t change their number of meetings, the prime overlap and most of all prime Fed holding him back from two WB titles (maybe a triple crown from 06-08?) and an ATP finals title at Nadal’s best year 2010.
I am indeed a huge Rafa fan, but I try to stay as reasonable as I can, honestly.

 

[Federev]

ATP Points (points before 2009 have been adjusted)​

​	Nole​	Fed​	Nadal​	Pete​
Total​	111,638​	100,680​	95,106​	74,796​
20​	8,493​	3,315​	8,493​	4,734​
21​	10,060​	4,921​	10,896​	5,840​
22​	8,310​	8,312​	12,682​	7,843​
23​	6,240​	12,036​	9,205​	9,684​
24​	13,630​	12,777​	12,450​	9,199​
25​	12,920​	15,903​	9,595​	9,243​
26​	12,260​	13,642​	6,690​	8,639​
27​	11,360​	10,079​	13,030​	7,438​
28​	16,585​	10,550​	6,835​	5,745​
29​	11,780​	9,145​	5,230​	6,431​

GOAT Points​

​	Nole​	Fed​	Nadal​	Pete​
Total​	542​	491​	459​	425​
20​	28​	4​	38​	16​
21​	37​	12​	47​	28​
22​	33​	33​	61​	55​
23​	26​	71​	48​	63​
24​	76​	69​	67​	55​
25​	66​	84​	48​	46​
26​	62​	74​	31​	58​
27​	60​	42​	67​	43​
28​	91​	56​	34​	31​
29​	63​	46​	18​	30​

To evaluate the actual competition strength a player is facing, stong/weak era/year only tell the possibility, how many times he needs to play strong opponents is the best direct measure, make sense???

​	All matches (win-loss)​	vs Top 5​	vs Top 10​	vs Elo>=2400​	vs Elo>=2200​
Nole​	698-123 (85.02%)​	84-54 (60.87%)​	176-75 (70.12%)​	31-27 (53.47%)​	130-66 (66.33%)​
Fed​	692-124 (84.80%)​	64-32 (66.67%)​	131-51 (71.98%)​	4-2 (66.67%)​	58-36 (61.70%)​
Nadal​	643-121 (84.16%)​	66-42 (61.11%)​	127-65 (66.15%)​	22-23 (48.89%)​	87-52 (62.59%)​
Pete​	621-143 (81.28%)​	55-24 (69.62%)​	106-53 (66.67%)​	0​	44-23 (65.67%)​

I think no matter how you skin the cat - the fact that Novak won the clear majority of his slams after turning 28, while Fed won the majority of His during the normal peak/prime windows of the mid twenties…is a thing.

 

[Neptune]

Would you say the opposite? Like: “Look, on non-hard from 06-10, Nole-Fed 3 matches, Nadal-Fed 14, more than four times!”?
It’s weird to treat clay as some off the records surface.
Also, if you include 04 and 05, which were Fed’s prime, Nadal faces him 22 times, 18 of which were finals. Against 19 matches for Djokovic, with 5 finals.
It’s obvious that Nadal had significantly more success on clay early on leading to more matches against Fed on clay, but the opposite could be said about Novak and hard. If anything, Nadal managed more meeting on hard alone than Djokovic out of hard, as well as three WB meetings.

You miss it, 06-10 Nole and Nadal both played Fed 19 times. Whoever played more on clay (Fed's weakest surface) will be much better off.
04-05 is not in Nadal or Nole's 20s, so save for next time.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Maybe you got overly attached to the tiers thing. I didn’t put players in tier 2 to downplay them. I meant to be more detailed in distinctions. For me, despite being an ATG in my eyes, Murray was never a strong enough contender to battle as equals with Nadal and Djokovic. Honestly, Federer in the 10s wasn’t much as well. That’s why I put them as tier 2. I’m not saying they’re not good, obviously.
Read carefully again, I think you missed my point. (I say this lightly, I don’t mean to be rude).

Not over attached. But I trust Elo.

Federer was solid 2200+ player in his 30s. That's much better than Roddick Safin Hewitt and even better than Djokovic pre 2010. You think Nadal always had great competition but he didn't. He has free reign in 2010 where he almost didn't meet any top players in your tier 4 even. And he won 3 slams.

Compared to that in 2015, Federer was at super high level and faced Nole 8 times. Beating thrice.

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Roger Federer

Roger Federer profile at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

 

[Neptune]

And sure, the clay dominance is what made Rafa able to go 12-6 in finals against prime Federer, but it doesn’t change their number of meetings, the prime overlap and most of all prime Fed holding him back from two WB titles (maybe a triple crown from 06-08?) and an ATP finals title at Nadal’s best year 2010.
I am indeed a huge Rafa fan, but I try to stay as reasonable as I can, honestly.

We sure can talk more along those some other time. Peak around the brutal big 4 era is very unfortunate, but if anything, Rafa is very lucky to be more different from the other 3 and able to get 22 GS 36 masters. Look how sad Murray is.

 

[accidental]

The Nadal

 

[Underdog]

You miss it, 06-10 Nole and Nadal both played Fed 19 times. Whoever played more on clay (Fed's weakest surface) will be much better off.
04-05 is not in Nadal or Nole's 20s, so save for next time.

Well, you’re right about this, but, sticking to my initial point about overlapping and importance of the encounters, 5 of Fed-Djo non-clay meeting were in Slams - two were finals (included AO ‘08 because Djoko won the tournament). Meanwhile, 4 of the Nadal-Fed non-clay meetings were in Slams, all of which were finals, including back-to-back-to-back WB finals. Nadal won two.
That’s a major point. Nadal had to prime through Fed’s prime, while Novak’s came after Fed’s.

 

[Underdog]

We sure can talk more along those some other time. Peak around the brutal big 4 era is very unfortunate, but if anything, Rafa is very lucky to be more different from the other 3 and able to get 22 GS 36 masters. Look how sad Murray is.

Murray was done wrong.