Who was the Strongest Male Player in his 20s ??? (Rivals, playing conditions all considered..)

Who was the Strongest Male Player in his 20s ??? (Rivals, playing conditions all considered..)

  • Total voters
    109
I'm glad the real Razer is back :D

fake-razor.jpg
 
Pheasant said:
Agreed. And Fed vs Sampras makes my head spin. Fed has the insane numbers with several seasons of having a winning pct over .900; something Pete was never close to. However, Pete was insanely clutch in the biggest tourneys. Toss in more polarized surfaces, and we get a a very dominant Pete. And I wouldn’t exclude Lendl; a guy who changed the game with his fitness and insane baseline play. That guy was 34-7 vs the top 5 from 1985-87, despite that insanely tough era. And by the way, 37 of those 44 matches vs the top 5 were against players that won 6+ slam titles in their career.

To me, it’s Lendl vs Sampras vs Federer. And I can’t pick a winner.
Click to expand...

All of them are great, hard to separate them directly based on numbers because every era presents great challenges that are different. The moderan era is so slam comparison based that anyone except Sampras from the past fails to measure on a 20s vs 20s comparison and probably Borg too. Thats why Lendl misses out, I believe not winning wimbledon a few times did cost him a bit. Other than that he has everything.

Underdog said:
Big 3 + Murray amassed 69 Slams between them. That’s as hard a competition as it gets.
I agree that it was harder to achieve a CGS back then, but it’s a huge achievement nonetheless and Agassi managed to do it.
Of course Agassi is better than Muster because, most of all, despite playing less semifinals, he won 8 Slams and Career Golden Slam. It was not a good analogy there as it was obvious stat picking to show something that no one believes.
As per Agassi v Murray, that’s a good debate. I think Agassi’s 8 Slams titles and 15 finals have the edge, but Murray’s numbers (3 titles, 11 finals) don’t do him any justice because of his peers.
I don’t see how poly strings increase the gap between players as every player has access to it the same. You could argue they benefit some players more than other due to stroke style, but that’s about it. Same way as non-poly strings didn’t benefit the same stroke styke as much back then. I’d call this progress, evolution in sport.
Is Steph Curry necessarily worse than Wilt Chamberlain because he is a three-point shooter in an era when it’s become one of the strongest fundamentals in the game that it wasn’t before? (Especially since Curry himself is a huge contributor to the growth of distance shooting).
Click to expand...

Big 3 + Murray amassing 69 between them is not necessarily an indicator of a stronger era than the past, it is an indicator of some talent vacuum. Federer won slams at a period when second best guy was Roddick of all people, that would like Pete winning slams with Goran ranked 2 for years, how we would that era have to be ? Your boy Nadal was ranked 2 in the mid 2000s, that would be like Thomas Muster ranked 2 in the 90s for 3-4 years, was he ? Nope, he wasnt because there were others. Then look at 2010s the second half, why did the Big 3 grab so many slams? It is because pansies like weaklings like Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitisipas are among the top 5-6 players born in the 1990s, these fellows are the fellows who would reach grand slam finals in previous eras. You might say Med moves far better than anyone of his size of the past, but then where are the guys of his generation who are shorter to him and move+hit better than him ? WHERE ARE THEY ? There weren't any, so you cannot say that 69 slams between 3-4 people is the indication of any strong era with plenty of depth. Murray is a 1-2 slam winner in any era, send him the 90s, he would be paraded naked by Sampras on Grass... not even 1 slam for him..... he could be lucky to pick an AO/USO somewhere but thats it..... Think again, this era is not as strong as it look, it lacks depth, it lacks guys who can create upsets, it lacks diversity, thats why the tall 6'5-6'6 men are reaching deep in slams repeatedly because thats the best you have in the 1990s born segment.
 
Last edited:
Silentchimera said:
@Razer who is your favourite tennis player of all time?
Click to expand...

Now I have no favourites as such. I am only here for Tennis, not for any player. I was a huge Fed fan in 2000s and even in 2010s but I slowly realized that Tennis is beyond worshipping 1 player, so at this point as I praise Novak for winning the slams race & his toughness in breaking through Fedal I must also acknowledge that it is not worth having any fav tennis player. Among the next gens I am quite open minded to all of them at present, a clean slate, no favourites at all among 2000s gen.
 
Pheasant said:
To me, it’s Lendl vs Sampras vs Federer. And I can’t pick a winner.
Click to expand...

Sampras's 20s had the maximum depth and probably the worst in Federer's 20s @Pheasant @Holmes @Underdog .... Now we know why Murray made so many Semi finals at will and then surrendered. In the 90s he would losing before Semis more.

Number of players who made 200+ 4th Round matches

In Sampras's 20s -> 27 Players made 200+ 4R+ Matches
In Lendl's 20s -> 16 Players made 200+ 4R+ Matches
In Federer's 20s -> 18 Players made 200+ 4R+ Matches
In Nadal's 20s -> 22 Players made 200+ 4R+ Matches
In Djokovic's 20s -> 20 Players made 200+ 4R+ Matches


Number of people who made 100+ QFs+ matches

In Sampras's 20s - > 30 people made 100+ QF+ matches
In Lendl's 20s -> 21 people made 100+ QF+ matches
In Federer's 20s -> 19 people made 100+ QF+ matches
In Nadal's 20s -> 23 people made 100+ QF+ matches
In Djokovic's 20s -> 21 people made 100+ QF+ matches

Number of people who made 100+ SFs+ matches

In Sampras's 20s - > 6 people made 100+ Semis+ matches (Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic & Muster)
In Lendl's 20s -> 5 people made 100+ Semis+ matches (Lendl, Mcenroe, Connors, Wilander & Edberg)
In Federer's 20s -> 4 people made 100+ Semis+ matches (Federer, Roddick, Nadal and Djokovic)
In Nadal's 20s -> 5 people made 100+ Semis+ matches (Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray & Ferrer)
In Djokovic's 20s -> 5 people made 100+ Semis+ matches (Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray & Ferrer)


Number of people who made 60+ SFs+ matches

In Sampras's 20s - > 20 people made 60+ Semis+ matches
In Lendl's 20s -> 14 people made 60+ Semis+ matches
In Federer's 20s -> 11 people made 60+ Semis+ matches
In Nadal's 20s -> 15 people made 60+ Semis+ matches
In Djokovic's 20s -> 15 people made 60+ Semis+ matches

Number of players who made 30+ Finals

In Sampras's 20s - > 8 people made 30+ Finals
In Lendl's 20s -> 9 people made 30+ Finals
In Federer's 20s -> 4 people made 30+ Finals
In Nadal's 20s -> 5 people made 30+ Finals
In Djokovic's 20s -> 5 people made 30+ Finals
 
Last edited:
Razer said:
All of them are great, hard to separate them directly based on numbers because every era presents great challenges that are different. The moderan era is so slam comparison based that anyone except Sampras from the past fails to measure on a 20s vs 20s comparison and probably Borg too. Thats why Lendl misses out, I believe not winning wimbledon a few times did cost him a bit. Other than that he has everything.



Big 3 + Murray amassing 69 between them is not necessarily an indicator of a stronger era than the past, it is an indicator of some talent vacuum. Federer won slams at a period when second best guy was Roddick of all people, that would like Pete winning slams with Goran ranked 2 for years, how we would that era have to be ? Your boy Nadal was ranked 2 in the mid 2000s, that would be like Thomas Muster ranked 2 in the 90s for 3-4 years, was he ? Nope, he wasnt because there were others. Then look at 2010s the second half, why did the Big 3 grab so many slams? It is because pansies like weaklings like Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitisipas are among the top 5-6 players born in the 1990s, these fellows are the fellows who would reach grand slam finals in previous eras. You might say Med moves far better than anyone of his size of the past, but then where are the guys of his generation who are shorter to him and move+hit better than him ? WHERE ARE THEY ? There weren't any, so you cannot say that 69 slams between 3-4 people is the indication of any strong era with plenty of depth. Murray is a 1-2 slam winner in any era, send him the 90s, he would be paraded naked by Sampras on Grass... not even 1 slam for him..... he could be lucky to pick an AO/USO somewhere but thats it..... Think again, this era is not as strong as it look, it lacks depth, it lacks guys who can create upsets, it lacks diversity, thats why the tall 6'5-6'6 men are reaching deep in slams repeatedly because thats the best you have in the 1990s born segment.
Click to expand...
I never said Federer had it tougher than Sampras, actually. I said Nadal. Really don’t understand how you come with some of those points.
Nadal reached world number 2 in 2005 by winning as much HC masters as CC masters, 2 of each, alongside the RG title in his first appearance. That’s double the amount of HC masters Muster has won in his career and half the masters in general for his career. In a single year. Completely different players, Nadal and Muster.
As for the second half of 2010s, when Nadal and Djokovic were over their 30s (since you mentioned Med and Zed I assumed you’re talking mainly 2017 onwards) that would be the same as Sampras winning over the Roddicks of the early 2000s (Agassi was older and probably more injured and still win in 2003 and lost only to Federer at USO 04 and 05).
I never said that the baseline of the field during Sampras’ era wasn’t higher, but he simply didn’t have to deal with as many big time players, and that’s all that’s needed to make it tougher. Because it doesn’t matter how many quarter or semifinals you male because your average peers are weaker, you would have to face one of the Big 4 (if not two or three) to reach the title. That’s harder than Sampras.
You are underestimating Murray there, imo.
 
Underdog said:
I never said Federer had it tougher than Sampras, actually. I said Nadal. Really don’t understand how you come with some of those points.
Nadal reached world number 2 in 2005 by winning as much HC masters as CC masters, 2 of each, alongside the RG title in his first appearance. That’s double the amount of HC masters Muster has won in his career and half the masters in general for his career. In a single year. Completely different players, Nadal and Muster.
As for the second half of 2010s, when Nadal and Djokovic were over their 30s (since you mentioned Med and Zed I assumed you’re talking mainly 2017 onwards) that would be the same as Sampras winning over the Roddicks of the early 2000s (Agassi was older and probably more injured and still win in 2003 and lost only to Federer at USO 04 and 05).
I never said that the baseline of the field during Sampras’ era wasn’t higher, but he simply didn’t have to deal with as many big time players, and that’s all that’s needed to make it tougher. Because it doesn’t matter how many quarter or semifinals you male because your average peers are weaker, you would have to face one of the Big 4 (if not two or three) to reach the title. That’s harder than Sampras.
You are underestimating Murray there, imo.
Click to expand...

Send Nadal to the 90s and let him play him with gut strings and a small racquet, he wins nothing except the french open. At best could take 2-3 slams outside Clay with great luck, not more. Plus his french opens would also be less since his career would not be this long, could be 3-4 frenchs shot minimum. That puts him at around same slams as Sampras won, so this whole notion of Nadal having it tougher is a big joke when most of his slams are at french where is already supreme.

To have strong competition you should have formidable rivals who are your direct competitors in the slams which you actually won on your fav surfaces, that means DJokovic whose resume like Fed is outside clay will be judged on their field outside clay because clay already has Nadal, so we need not worry about it. In Nadal's case only few of his slams like 2008W, 2009AO, 2013USO are strong, rest I dont think he has had strong slams outside of french. Djokovic and Sampras had direct guys blocking them on their own fav surfaces itself.... hence they faced tougher
 
Razer said:
Send Nadal to the 90s and let him play him with gut strings and a small racquet, he wins nothing except the french open. At best could take 2-3 slams outside Clay with great luck, not more. Plus his french opens would also be less since his career would not be this long, could be 3-4 frenchs shot minimum. That puts him at around same slams as Sampras won, so this whole notion of Nadal having it tougher is a big joke when most of his slams are at french where is already supreme.

To have strong competition you should have formidable rivals who are your direct competitors in the slams which you actually won on your fav surfaces, that means DJokovic whose resume like Fed is outside clay will be judged on their field outside clay because clay already has Nadal, so we need not worry about it. In Nadal's case only few of his slams like 2008W, 2009AO, 2013USO are strong, rest I dont think he has had strong slams outside of french. Djokovic and Sampras had direct guys blocking them on their own fav surfaces itself.... hence they faced tougher
Click to expand...
You’re trying and argument which is the same as “put Curry in Chamberlain’s era and see if he performs as well”. Nadal excelled with the tools he had at his disposal. Players of different eras can mainly only be compared by their achievements and how tough it was in their respective eras. Equipment change is not a good argument because the players Nadal faced on his way to greatness were also using poly and bigger racquets. If anything, Sampras was probably hurt by poly and bigger racquets.
You’re basing your point on your arbitrary decision that Nadal would win X or Y french opens in said era or some amout of the other Slams. You can’t test that. What we have is a bigger racquet and poly user Nadal, facing a bigger racquers ans poly user field including the two other best players of all time.
Check the times Nadal has lost a final outside the french. It’s either to Federer, Djokovic or redline Wawrinka. That screams formidable rivals to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
the one who held all 4 slams, WTF, 5 masters (making 3 more finals) and 2 MMs at once! beating 31 top10 players to gain all times record high ATP points.

BTW, the same player was strongest in his 30´s! and overall of course, that is actually only important.
 
NachoGPT said:
Federer, but TTW acts like achievements in your 30s mean nothing. Like I said, this forum would make fun of Messi for winning his first World Cup at 35. lol
Click to expand...
It's a sly mechanism that's been created to try and chip away at Djokovic's crown. They don't believe it but it's all his detractors are left with since he crushed on all corners and from every angle.
 
NachoGPT said:
Federer, but TTW acts like achievements in your 30s mean nothing. Like I said, this forum would make fun of Messi for winning his first World Cup at 35. lol
Click to expand...
Considering that is one of the 3 most undoubtedly rigged sporting events in all of history I think he deserves worse than that.

At least with Novak you can’t say there was any outside influence on his wins.
 
Kralingen said:
Considering that is one of the 3 most undoubtedly rigged sporting events in all of history I think he deserves worse than that.

At least with Novak you can’t say there was any outside influence on his wins.
Click to expand...
lol how was it rigged? because of the penalties? the only penalty I think that was unjustified was the one against Poland. France got 2 penalties in the final so they did a poor job at helping Argentina there.
 
Federer for the all-roundedness, but in this debate he's probably fortunate that Peakovic was on the scene to block Nadal from totally running riot in 2010-12. It's enough of a debate as is with Nadal overcoming 20s Fed in his kingdoms, but at the very least the slam count and other numbers are in favour of the Swiss and should take priority.
 
NoleFam said:
It's a sly mechanism that's been created to try and chip away at Djokovic's crown. They don't believe it but it's all his detractors are left with since he crushed on all corners and from every angle.
Click to expand...
Only Djokovic has been subjected to this, of course.
 
ROGER FEDERER


From 2004 AO - 2010 AO, prime/peak Federer amazes us by winning a staggering 15 out of 25 slams !

Of his 25 total slam appearances, he:
reaches 10 consecutive slam finals
reaches 4 finals in a season 3 times
won 3 out of 4 slams in a season 3 times
reaches 18 out of 19 slam finals
reaches 24 out of 25 slam semifinals
owns 5 slam titles at 3 different venue

He won 51 single titles

He accumulated 266 weeks at the top of the ATP rankings including an astonishing 237 consecutive weeks.
5 out of 6 years he ended the YE #1.

Prime Federer's mastery and supremacy is off the charts !
 
Laver and Rosewall had some good fortune that Borg-Connors were still years away from turning pro, otherwise he would never have won any CYGS in his 30s. The late 60s to 1973 is actually a weak era in Tennis.
 
I was never a Borg fan but IMO, he was superior to Becker in his twenties. He retired in his mid twenties having won 11 slams. Becker retired later with only 6 slams. Also, Borg had tougher competition than Becker and was able to win slams on clay and grass the two most diverse surfaces of that era. IMO, Wimbledon was always overrated, yet Borg won 5 Wimbledon's, Becker only 3. Becker never reached a FO final and never won a clay title. Again, IMO, Becker has always been overrated here. He never ended a year at #1 and has few weeks at #1, much fewer than even Edberg.
 
NoleFam said:
I must have missed fans saying Laver's CYGS in his 30s was vulturing and didn't mean much because he was over the age of 27.
Click to expand...
I suppose you also missed Fed detractors claiming his achievements in his twenties were vulturing.
NoleFam said:
I also remember it being amazing and a sign of greatness when Federer's 2017-2018 run happened.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm sure this board was/is just filled with consensus on that. Not a dicky bird about vulturing in this period either.
 
The only reason Federer achieved more than Djokovic in his 20s is because Djokovic in his 20s dealt with the strongest era ever:

J

Thread 'The legendary Big4 era'

From 2008 Wimbledon to 2016 YEC:

Grand Slam score:

1) Djokovic 183-23 (88.8%)
2) Nadal 135-18 (88.2%)
3) Federer 158-27 (85.4%)
4) Murray 160-30 (84.2%)

Big tournament score:

1) Djokovic 473-78 (85.8%)
2) Nadal 364-74 (83.11%)
3) Federer 350-84 (80.65%)
4) Murray 365-95 (79.35%)

Grand Slam titles won:

1) Djokovic 11
2) Nadal 10
3) Federer 5
4) Murray / Wawrinka 3

Big Titles won:

1) Djokovic 42
2) Nadal 28
3) Murray 20
4) Federer 17...
  • Like
 
FlyingSaucer said:
I suppose you also missed Fed detractors claiming his achievements in his twenties were vulturing.

Yeah, I'm sure this board was/is just filled with consensus on that. Not a dicky bird about vulturing in this period either.
Click to expand...
His comment was specifically about 30s and Messi at 35, not about 20s.

There certainly was not a plethora of posters on here saying that what Federer did in 2017-2018 didn't matter because he was older than 27 or he was vulturing. Most were saying how great it was. Funny that.
 
junkieballer said:
The only reason Federer achieved more than Djokovic in his 20s is because Djokovic in his 20s dealt with the strongest era ever:

J

Thread 'The legendary Big4 era'

From 2008 Wimbledon to 2016 YEC:

Grand Slam score:

1) Djokovic 183-23 (88.8%)
2) Nadal 135-18 (88.2%)
3) Federer 158-27 (85.4%)
4) Murray 160-30 (84.2%)

Big tournament score:

1) Djokovic 473-78 (85.8%)
2) Nadal 364-74 (83.11%)
3) Federer 350-84 (80.65%)
4) Murray 365-95 (79.35%)

Grand Slam titles won:

1) Djokovic 11
2) Nadal 10
3) Federer 5
4) Murray / Wawrinka 3

Big Titles won:

1) Djokovic 42
2) Nadal 28
3) Murray 20
4) Federer 17...
  • Like
Click to expand...
Djokovic did choke a lot in his 20s. USO 2012, RG 2013, USO 2013, AO 2014, USO 2014, all very winnable.
 
NoleFam said:
His comment was specifically about 30s and Messi at 35, not about 20s.
Click to expand...
Detractors coming up with arguments to "chip away" at the achievements of player x is not specific to any age range, so I was referring to that more generally. If this is mechanism borne out of copium, what was the reason for it against Fed?

NoleFam said:
There certainly was not a plethora of posters on here saying that what Federer did in 2017-2018 didn't matter because he was older than 27 or he was vulturing. Most were saying how great it was. Funny that.
Click to expand...
Pardon? You're telling me there weren't many people claiming Federer was vulturing at the time in 2017? You sure? Weren't you one of them?
 
FlyingSaucer said:
Detractors coming up with arguments to "chip away" at the achievements of player x is not specific to any age range, so I was referring to that more generally. If this is mechanism borne out of copium, what was the reason for it against Fed?


Pardon? You're telling me there weren't many people claiming Federer was vulturing at the time in 2017? You sure? Weren't you one of them?
Click to expand...
No there were not many people on here saying that. Obviously I wasn't one of them and it says you joined in 2021 anyway so what would you know about what happened here in 2017? Lol. Anyways...
 
Last edited:
Federer had 2 slam wins over Nadal and 5 wins (2 on '07, when Djokovic was still a teenager) over Djokovic, in his 20's. Too few for no. 1 player in the world.

Federer got his 16 slams by picking on the fearsome foursome of his generation, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Davydenko. Against whom, he got 26-2 slam record.

Djokovic for the level of competition.
 
Last edited:
NoleFam said:
No there were not many people on here saying that. Obviously I wasn't one of them and it says you joined in 2021 anyway so what would you know about what happened here in 2017? Lol. Anyways...
Click to expand...
Because the threads are there to read and I read some? I am pretty sure I remember reading an exchange between you and Hitman and neither of you were, well, let's say, best pleased about Fed being on the verge of winning Wimbledon that year.
 
FlyingSaucer said:
Because the threads are there to read and I read some? I am pretty sure I remember reading an exchange between you and Hitman and neither of you were, well, let's say, best pleased about Fed being on the verge of winning Wimbledon that year.
Click to expand...
Yea I was so displeased with Federer winning...and I doubt @Hitman was either.
NoleFam said:
Congrats to Federer on his 8th Wimbledon and 19 Slam title overall. He is officially the Wimbledon GOAT. It is a great achievement for someone at 35 years of age. I just hope the tennis for this year picks up because it's disappointing.
Click to expand...
 
TMF said:
ROGER FEDERER


From 2004 AO - 2010 AO, prime/peak Federer amazes us by winning a staggering 15 out of 25 slams !

Of his 25 total slam appearances, he:
reaches 10 consecutive slam finals
reaches 4 finals in a season 3 times
won 3 out of 4 slams in a season 3 times
reaches 18 out of 19 slam finals
reaches 24 out of 25 slam semifinals
owns 5 slam titles at 3 different venue

He won 51 single titles

He accumulated 266 weeks at the top of the ATP rankings including an astonishing 237 consecutive weeks.
5 out of 6 years he ended the YE #1.

Prime Federer's mastery and supremacy is off the charts !
Click to expand...
From '04 to '07, Federer didn't have serious contenders. From his generation, most competitors were Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Davydenko, against whom he was 26-2 in slam matches.

When more serious competitors emerged, he mostly failed against Nadal and Djokovic, against whom he got records of 4-10 and 6-11 in slam matches.
 
NachoGPT said:
Djokovic did choke a lot in his 20s. USO 2012, RG 2013, USO 2013, AO 2014, USO 2014, all very winnable.
Click to expand...
Incorrect .
We could say the same about Nadal and Federer.
And remember that Wawrinka was robbed at the 2013 Australian Open.
:whistle:
 
NoleFam said:
Yea I was so displeased with Federer winning...and I doubt @Hitman was either.
Click to expand...
From memory: Something along the lines of, "This is only happening because of one very specific reason" and then some mention of Raonic being injured contributing. That's the main reason I remember it, because I thought it was particularly amusing that some Djo fans would claim that Fed was benefitting from Raonic supposedly being injured. So, that wasn't you?
 
FlyingSaucer said:
From memory: Something along the lines of, "This is only happening because of one very specific reason" and then some mention of Raonic being injured contributing. That's the main reason I remember it, because I thought it was particularly amusing that some Djo fans would claim that Fed was benefitting from Raonic supposedly being injured. So, that wasn't you?
Click to expand...
You're wrong obviously and move on please, and stop wasting my time.
 
SonnyT said:
From '04 to '07, Federer didn't have serious contenders. From his generation, most competitors were Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Davydenko, against whom he was 26-2 in slam matches.

When more serious competitors emerged, he mostly failed against Nadal and Djokovic, against whom he got records of 4-10 and 6-11 in slam matches.
Click to expand...

Generation is strong if they have successfully took over the tour from the previous generation(Sampras's era). Federer and his peers put an end to the 90s players who either retire or winning nothing afterward. That's is the normal order sonny
 
FlyingSaucer said:
From memory: Something along the lines of, "This is only happening because of one very specific reason" and then some mention of Raonic being injured contributing. That's the main reason I remember it, because I thought it was particularly amusing that some Djo fans would claim that Fed was benefitting from Raonic supposedly being injured. So, that wasn't you?
Click to expand...
that seems like a misleading view of this post
NoleFam said:
I never said fall 2016 was great and in fact I said it was bad. I don't think that is bias. I just feel 2017 is worse and have given examples of why I believe so. I have felt most of this year has been worse and the fall is really no exception. We'll see about Zverev but Murray almost lost that WTF SF to Raonic last year. Do I expect anyone to push Nadal or Federer like that there this year? No I really don't but I guess we will see. With so many players out of the game at this point in time, it makes the quality go down tremendously. Their absence is definitely felt and that's the main reason this fall season feels worse than last year's fall season, in my opinion of course.
Click to expand...
 
H2H in their 20s against the other Big3s:

Djokovic 48-39 (55.2%)
Nadal 41-36 (53.2%)
Federer 22-26 (45.8%)

Djokovic > Nadal > Federer

The only reason Federer won the most Slam in their 20s is because he had the easy start in 2001-07 weak era when he didn't play many matches against other Big3s.

Total matches played in their 20s against other Big3s:

Djokovic 87
Nadal 77
Federer 48
 
Federer played better in his 30s than in his 20s.

vs Nadal:
2001-10 h2h 8-14 (36.4%)
2011-20 h2h 8-10 (44.4%)

vs Murray
2001-10 h2h 6-8 (42.9%)
2011-20 h2h 8-3 (72.7%)

vs Wawrinka
2001-10 h2h 6-1 (85.7%)
2011-20 h2h 17-2 (89.5%)

vs Berdych
2001-10 h2h 9-3 (75.0%)
2011-20 h2h 11-3 (78.6%)

vs Gasquet
2001-10 h2h 7-1 (87.5%)
2010-20 h2h 12-1 (92.3%)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Most GS wins by year - Top10
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
MatsPhilander
MatsPhilander
SamprasisGOAT
  • Poll Poll
Who had the harder Era and Rivals Pete Sampras or Rafael Nadal?
Replies
15
Views
3K
Man of steel
Man of steel
Razer
  • Poll Poll
What are the time periods for the so called Weak Era, Strong Era & Career Inflation Era respectively ? Did they exist ?
2
Replies
90
Views
5K
Neptune
Neptune
aditya123
A look at Top 3s high profile wins at Uso:
Replies
30
Views
2K
aditya123
aditya123
SABRvolley
  • Poll Poll
2009 Federer vs 2012 Federer - Who was better?
Replies
42
Views
2K
Sudacafan
Sudacafan
Back
Top