Wins over top2 at hardcourt Slams

Gosh, if your player is good then why don't you just enjoy that ? What is it with trying to make their rival bad , on a daily basis ?

Really juvenile crowd here.

And this is from all fan bases. Calling Nadal a clay courter or Fed a weak era champion just shows you how much the players really are in your head.
 
3 things I want to mention:

1. The vast majority of Fed's matches with the top 2 came after he turned 30. Another was in 2001 when he wasn't even a top 10 player or had a slam SF. That leaves only 1 match that he played in his prime and he happened to lose it.

2. Damn Fed's USO 2011 loss.

3. The fact that the then no.2 Nadal who could excel on clay and grass was unable to reach Fed on HC shows that the HC field was incredibly strong back then. If even the no.2 couldn't do much in HC slams, you know the field was strong.
 
mike danny said:
3 things I want to mention:

1. The vast majority of Fed's matches with the top 2 came after he turned 30. Another was in 2001 when he wasn't even a top 10 player or had a slam SF. That leaves only 1 match that he played in his prime and he happened to lose it.
Click to expand...
2009 AO
2011 AO
2011 UO
2012 AO
2015 UO
2016 AO
2020 AO

In all these matches Federer was ranked in the top3 and he couldn't get a single win.
 
Third Serve said:
Of course, this stat suffers because the number 2 player throughout most of Fed's prime was Nadal who never even made it far enough to face Federer (though he was clearly much better on grass and clay) on HC Slams. Had he gotten that far during one of Fed's USO or AO hot streaks, I'm 95% sure Fed's numbers wouldn't look so bad. But those courts simply didn't suit his game back then and he lost early, usually to big hitters like Blake and Gonzalez.

Still, those numbers aren't the most impressive for sure.
Click to expand...
That's the reason why Federer was the chief beneficiary of the weak era ('04-'08): that a teen-aged Nadal, whose game had not matured yet, could be a perennial No. 2.

It was evident that Nadal's game hadn't matured, because, even though he was ranked No 2 for most of those years, he couldn't make it through to the finals at both AO and USO, to face Federer in the finals.

Once Nadal matured beyond his teen age years, and Djokovic appeared on the scene, the strong era began. That was when Federer's run dried up completely at both HC majors!
 
SonnyT said:
That's the reason why Federer was the chief beneficiary of the weak era ('04-'08): that a teen-aged Nadal, whose game had not matured yet, could be a perennial No. 2.

It was evident that Nadal's game hadn't matured, because, even though he was ranked No 2 for most of those years, he couldn't make it through to the finals at both AO and USO, to face Federer in the finals.

Once Nadal matured beyond his teen age years, and Djokovic appeared on the scene, the strong era began. That was when Federer's run dried up completely at both HC majors!
Click to expand...
Is the correct answer.
 
This stat does not look pretty for Federer but I am actually going to take up for him a bit.
  • In 2004 AO and 2004 USO, he most likely would have beaten #2 Roddick if he made it to those finals and not lost in the QFs. I give Federer two wins for those.
  • In 2005 AO, Safin played like he was #2 in the world instead of Roddick and beat Federer there. Not a bad loss by any means. In 2005 USO, #2 Nadal doesn't even make it out of the 3rd round. I don't see him beating Federer there so that's 3 wins for Federer.
  • In 2006 AO, Nadal doesn't play and loses to Youhzny in the QF at the USO. I don't see him beating Federer that year at the USO if he made it so that's 4 wins for Federer.
  • In 2007 AO, Nadal loses to Gonzalez but would he have beaten Federer? Probably not in the form Federer was in so that's 5 wins for Federer. Nadal loses to Ferrer at the USO but I don't know which way a match between him and Federer would have gone so I won't add a win there.
So all in all, Federer could have 5 wins had those players made it to him when he was ruling the roost, and 5-8 looks a heck of a lot better than 0-8. However, the fact that he didn't even play the #2 player in any hardcourt Slam from 2004 AO to 2007 USO (8 Slams total) fuels the weak era narrative against him.
 
tumblr_o5uzcfRdbG1sj4xr4o1_400.gif
 
NoleFam said:
This stat does not look pretty for Federer but I am actually going to take up for him a bit.
  • In 2004 AO and 2004 USO, he most likely would have beaten #2 Roddick if he made it to those finals and not lost in the QFs. I give Federer two wins for those.
  • In 2005 AO, Safin played like he was #2 in the world instead of Roddick and beat Federer there. Not a bad loss by any means. In 2005 USO, #2 Nadal doesn't even make it out of the 3rd round. I don't see him beating Federer there so that's 3 wins for Federer.
  • In 2006 AO, Nadal doesn't play and loses to Youhzny in the QF at the USO. I don't see him beating Federer that year at the USO if he made it so that's 4 wins for Federer.
  • In 2007 AO, Nadal loses to Gonzalez but would he have beaten Federer? Probably not in the form Federer was in so that's 5 wins for Federer. Nadal loses to Ferrer at the USO but I don't know which way a match between him and Federer would have gone so I won't add a win there.
So all in all, Federer could have 5 wins had those players made it to him when he was ruling the roost, and 5-8 looks a heck of a lot better than 0-8. However, the fact that he didn't even play the #2 player in any hardcourt Slam from 2004 AO to 2007 USO (8 Slams total) fuels the weak era narrative against him.
Click to expand...
Why stop there? Why not just give him a load of other imaginary wins. He has played in 39 hard court slams since 2000, so give him a win against a top two seed in each of the others and his record is 31-8 which is much more respectable and means he becomes the GOAT again!

Well done Roger!
 
SonnyT said:
That's the reason why Federer was the chief beneficiary of the weak era ('04-'08): that a teen-aged Nadal, whose game had not matured yet, could be a perennial No. 2.

It was evident that Nadal's game hadn't matured, because, even though he was ranked No 2 for most of those years, he couldn't make it through to the finals at both AO and USO, to face Federer in the finals.

Once Nadal matured beyond his teen age years, and Djokovic appeared on the scene, the strong era began. That was when Federer's run dried up completely at both HC majors!
Click to expand...
His game had definitely matured on clay and grass. 2005-2008 was prime grassdal and 2005-2008 was prime claydal (2007 and 2008 being his two best RGs, along with 2012).

It’s just that he hadn’t matured on hard courts. But it’s fine, because the HC field was deep enough to partially make up for it.
 
Spencer Gore said:
But you're not looking at it from both sides. You're not imagining what would have happened to Roger on those occasions when he lost before meeting Djokovic or Nadal.
Click to expand...

I am. I'm going back to when he was #1 from 2004-2007 and outlining what I think would have happened if he played the #2. He already went 0-7 against Djokodal from 2009 onwards so I think we have a good idea what would have happened.
 
tennis_pro said:
How is it Fed's fault that the clay courter enternal no 2 sucked in hc slams for years?

maybe if nadal wasnt too busy losing to youzhny or gonzalez fed would score, dont know
Click to expand...

Had they met it would have looked even worse for Federer. Back in the day Nadal had been owning Federer on HC since their first encounter.
 
NoleFam said:
This stat does not look pretty for Federer but I am actually going to take up for him a bit.
  • In 2004 AO and 2004 USO, he most likely would have beaten #2 Roddick if he made it to those finals and not lost in the QFs. I give Federer two wins for those.
  • In 2005 AO, Safin played like he was #2 in the world instead of Roddick and beat Federer there. Not a bad loss by any means. In 2005 USO, #2 Nadal doesn't even make it out of the 3rd round. I don't see him beating Federer there so that's 3 wins for Federer.
  • In 2006 AO, Nadal doesn't play and loses to Youhzny in the QF at the USO. I don't see him beating Federer that year at the USO if he made it so that's 4 wins for Federer.
  • In 2007 AO, Nadal loses to Gonzalez but would he have beaten Federer? Probably not in the form Federer was in so that's 5 wins for Federer. Nadal loses to Ferrer at the USO but I don't know which way a match between him and Federer would have gone so I won't add a win there.
So all in all, Federer could have 5 wins had those players made it to him when he was ruling the roost, and 5-8 looks a heck of a lot better than 0-8. However, the fact that he didn't even play the #2 player in any hardcourt Slam from 2004 AO to 2007 USO (8 Slams total) fuels the weak era narrative against him.
Click to expand...
Or maybe the HC field was very strong if the then no.2 Nadal, who was thriving on clay and grass, couldn't make it to him.
 
Winners or Errors said:
Lack of depth = more opportunities to defeat #1 or #2 if you get to the final, since they are perennially there. More depth = less likelihood that the person you are playing in the final is #1 or #2. It's not that complicated, really.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about final? This is about any match at AO and USO.
 
NoleFam said:
This stat does not look pretty for Federer but I am actually going to take up for him a bit.
  • In 2004 AO and 2004 USO, he most likely would have beaten #2 Roddick if he made it to those finals and not lost in the QFs. I give Federer two wins for those.
  • In 2005 AO, Safin played like he was #2 in the world instead of Roddick and beat Federer there. Not a bad loss by any means. In 2005 USO, #2 Nadal doesn't even make it out of the 3rd round. I don't see him beating Federer there so that's 3 wins for Federer.
  • In 2006 AO, Nadal doesn't play and loses to Youhzny in the QF at the USO. I don't see him beating Federer that year at the USO if he made it so that's 4 wins for Federer.
  • In 2007 AO, Nadal loses to Gonzalez but would he have beaten Federer? Probably not in the form Federer was in so that's 5 wins for Federer. Nadal loses to Ferrer at the USO but I don't know which way a match between him and Federer would have gone so I won't add a win there.
So all in all, Federer could have 5 wins had those players made it to him when he was ruling the roost, and 5-8 looks a heck of a lot better than 0-8. However, the fact that he didn't even play the #2 player in any hardcourt Slam from 2004 AO to 2007 USO (8 Slams total) fuels the weak era narrative against him.
Click to expand...
What?
 
ForehandRF said:
The depth of the field on HC, in that period, is underrated and many also forget that conditions were different, especially at the USO, more suitable to Fed's game.
Click to expand...
Ever since HC became the most prominent surface (around late 80s/early 90s) I don't think the field on HC has ever been weak to be honest, definitely the case with clay and grass.
 
mike danny said:
3 things I want to mention:

1. The vast majority of Fed's matches with the top 2 came after he turned 30. Another was in 2001 when he wasn't even a top 10 player or had a slam SF. That leaves only 1 match that he played in his prime and he happened to lose it.

2. Damn Fed's USO 2011 loss.

3. The fact that the then no.2 Nadal who could excel on clay and grass was unable to reach Fed on HC shows that the HC field was incredibly strong back then. If even the no.2 couldn't do much in HC slams, you know the field was strong.
Click to expand...

A player is supposed to be bad after he turns 30? Federer was in the top 3 most of the last 10 years. If you're in the top 3 or 5, you should be able to beat top 2 once in a while. What this proves is that Fed is a bad big-match player! Murray and Wawrinka did it often enough, and Wawa was never in the top 3!

Your #3 point is totally wrong. It showed that, in the weak era, a teen-aged, pre-prime Nadal could hold on the #2 spot for years. He was seeded 2 for 4 straight years, and couldn't reach the finals. A mature, prime Nadal in the strong era of 2010's would never fail to do that!

The emergence of Djokovic, coupled with the continued maturity of Nadal, in 2011 augured in the strong era, and stopped the Federer Slam gravy express.
 
Last edited:
SonnyT said:
A player is supposed to be bad after he turns 30? Federer was in the top 3 most of the last 10 years. If you're in the top 3 or 5, you should be able to beat top 2 once in a while.
Click to expand...

didn't he beat Novak at WTF 2019?
wasn't that in straight sets?
 
tennis_pro said:
Ever since HC became the most prominent surface (around late 80s/early 90s) I don't think the field on HC has ever been weak to be honest, definitely the case with clay and grass.
Click to expand...
Depends on what part of the HC season.
 
SonnyT said:
We're talking Slams here. Federer has no trouble beating Nole in non-slams!
Click to expand...

you're only talking slams here, cause it fits Lew narrative, and that's how Lew framed the question.
but guess what, ATP gives points for all tournaments, and ranking is compiled based on points.

so, if you want to claim that someone is a bad big match player, look at all big matches.
when #1 in ranking and YE#1 is down the line, I would assume it is a big match, isn't it?
 
blablavla said:
when #1 in ranking and YE#1 is down the line, I would assume it is a big match, isn't it?
Click to expand...
False. Djokovic would have had to win 2 other matches, and it was not on the line for Federer.

In the 2016 YEC final the #1 was truly on the line for both players, and it was a final. That's a real big match.
 
Lew II said:
False. Djokovic would have had to win 2 other matches, and it was not on the line for Federer.

In the 2016 YEC final al the #1 was on the line, and it was a final. That's a real big match.
Click to expand...

it's not false Lew.

Losing that match meant that Novak couldn't claim neither.
Winning the match meant that he had a chance, if he won further matches.

But don't worry.
He lost the match to Murray, in the WTF final, when both were literally at stake.
So, it's not like your idol never lost a match where a win would have brought him both: #1 and YE#1 immediately.
 
weakera said:
How about the records vs top 2?
Click to expand...

if we are not ignoring matches simply to fit Lew narrative, but look at the total

Fed won 34 encounters when he played an opponent ranked #1 or #2 out of 74 matches
Novak won 42 encounters when he played an opponent ranked #1 or #2 out of 79 matches

doesn't look bad if we account for when these matches happened:
Fed played 39 matches starting with 2011, out of which he won only 15
Novak played 40 matches since 2011, out of which he won 30

had Novak faced some players of his own caliber, but 4-6 years younger, I guess this stat would look otherwise, but in the weak era, we can celebrate the mightiest tennis player humanity has ever seen.
 
In his heyday of the naughts, it was hard for Federer to get a match-up with No.2, because that position was unstable. My guess is, during the naughts, the most frequent #2 in the Slams were the teenage Nadal and Roddick. Nadal had trouble playing up to his ranking in his teenage years, except RG. His 1st non-clay major was at '08 Wimbledon, when he was 20. Roddick had trouble playing up to his ranking, period.

In Djokovic's heyday of the teens, he was often #1. And the #2 position was very stable, usually occupied by Federer or Nadal, sometimes by Murray. None of them had any trouble playing up to their rankings, so Djokovic had plenty of chances to have a T2 matchup.

One era had one ATG, and a teenage would-be ATG. The other had three ATG's and a near ATG.
 
Last edited:
Man he is so rent free in so many heads. It feels just scrumptious thinking about it, especially all the abacus time that went into this Gore-y Lewberry.
 
SonnyT said:
One era had one ATG, and a teenage would-be ATG. The other had three ATG's and a near ATG.
Click to expand...

My mistake, the 2010's didn't have 3 ATG's. It had 3 GOAT candidates. There's a big difference!

In the teens, Federer won 4 majors. But without Djokovic, he would've won 5 more: Wimbledon (14, 15 & 19), US (15), AO (16). So he was very much playing near his prime!
 
blablavla said:
do you want to remind us what ranking Djokovic had when he entered Roland Garros 2011?
do you want to remind us to whom Novak lost in the SF of Roland Garros 2011?
Click to expand...
And Nadals ranking at two of the past three Australian opens when he lost in the quarterfinals
 
demunbrun said:
This thread is about hard courts not my doing
Click to expand...

this thread is about HC only cause it Lew tried to frame it that way, cause it fits Lew narrative.

as in if any player could defeat Novak in RG?
as in if any player could defeat Hewitt or Nadal or Roddick in Wimbledon?

give me a break.
 
Including RG (1-6) Federer is 1-14 in three slams out of four :oops:

Only at Wimbledon he has a good score: 6-4
 
blablavla said:
this thread is about HC only cause it Lew tried to frame it that way, cause it fits Lew narrative.

as in if any player could defeat Novak in RG?
as in if any player could defeat Hewitt or Nadal or Roddick in Wimbledon?

give me a break.
Click to expand...
Federer is called the hardcourt goat and this stat debunks the myth.
 
ND-13 said:
Gosh, if your player is good then why don't you just enjoy that ? What is it with trying to make their rival bad , on a daily basis ?

Really juvenile crowd here.

And this is from all fan bases. Calling Nadal a clay courter or Fed a weak era champion just shows you how much the players really are in your head.
Click to expand...
Its intense and militant and it does make you wonder what's in the head of posters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lew II
Wins over top ranked Big3
2 3
Replies
107
Views
5K
Third Serve
Third Serve
D
Most GS wins by year - Top10
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
MatsPhilander
MatsPhilander
Lew II
New top5 best rankings by year
Replies
43
Views
1K
DjokoGOAT
DjokoGOAT
N
If the Big 4 didn't exist
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Deleted member 307496
D
NoleFam
Hardcourt Slam champs who are less than 50% against the top 10
2 3
Replies
135
Views
3K
Hitman
Hitman
Back
Top