FEDERER v NADAL V DJOKOVIC (etc) - MOD NOTE 1ST POST

BorneTobyWilde

Ken Norton wrote: »

Agassi beat Federer in 1998, 2001 and 2002. Then Federer won the next 8 encounters in a row from 2003 to 2005.

That's my point, Agassi and Sampras were ending their careers, after dominating, then Federer had no one in his way and picked up a lot of titles

Rikand

StevenToast wrote: »

Just think... the brits tried to include murray in a "big 4"!!!

Like comparing paul lawrie to jack nicklaus!

Well not quite, but he did hold the number 1 ranking in the world at a time when the other 3 were well in the peak of their careers and he was well able to beat any of them for a few years. At that time, they definitely were the big 4.

It'd be more like Faldo to Nicklaus

Ken Norton

Ken Norton wrote: »

They're all capable of beating each other as is evident below with Djokovic being bageled by Federer at the Cinicinatti Open.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUrC8xr9b7E

Fed hasn't been capable of beating Djokovic for the last 9 years

(Wimbledon 2012 was the last time he managed any sort of result against him)

and in slams overall Djokovic has mangled him 11 to 6 - a pretty sorry tale.

close enough to 2 to 1 for most people!

Could get embarrassing if they are set to meet at Wimbledon this year

I couldn't see Djokovic taking pity on the big fake - might get messy and force Fed to tilt completely.

Maybe he will pull out a round in advance so he won't have to face him like he did in France?!

Adamocovic

Spotcurve wrote: »

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Federer, not sure why that is.

Federer had a winning head to head against Djokovic until he entered his thirties, when Djokovic began beating him regularly. That's the normal order of things, the next generation comes along and bests the aging and declining generation. Djokovic and Nadal have been fortunate that they haven't had a younger generation to contend with that was a credible threat.

There's nothing embarrassing about a 39 year old losing a grandslam tennis match, the fact he can still compete at that age is another feather in his cap. When Federer beat 29 year old Pete Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001, it wasn't embarrassing for Sampras, it's the normal order. He was old and well past his best and close to retirement. You can't conclude from that match that Federer is better than Sampras.

It’s kind of funny when we talk about the norm of players losing around 29.

When you think either Djokovic (34), Nadal (35) and Federer (39) have won all but 1 of the grand slams in the last 5 years.

Some ridiculous longevity.

whiterebel

Laver retired at 41, after a 23 year career.

josip

One of the other GOAT-related metrics that's less commonly used but nevertheless interesting, is the number of singles titles won.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_%E2%80%93_men%27s_singles#All_tournaments

I can't see where Federer is going to get another 6 titles to catch Jimmy Connors.
Nadal might catch Lendl, but won't catch Federer.
Djokovic could catch Federer, but having said he'll concentrate on the slams from now on, I can't see him taking part in enough tournaments.
Maybe if he gets to 21 GS titles, he'll change.

Very similar for matches won, although I can see Federer catching Connors here if he wanted to hang around long enough.
Nadal has a slightly better win percentage than Djokovic, but that could change in the next few weeks.

josip

When you're supposed to be the GOAT but everyone else has more Olympic medals than you do.

redlad12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117424252#Comment_117424252

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117424252#Comment_117424252

Murray was quite clearly part of a big 4 for a few years, anyone who said he wasn't id assume has followed tennis much.

Hector Savage

Well, they are all on 20, next year I find it hard to believe Djokovic can win the AO - the new lads are really coming through ... Alcaraz, Brooksby, Sinner , as well as the current guys , Medvedev,Zverev etc..

Ironically Nadal now has the best chance of hitting 21 in the French !

mad stuff

Wimbledon is the biggest gimme for Djokovic now, not Australia.

He might even overtake Woger there.

Probably will at least tie him on 8.

None of the younger guys are much good there yet and Covid took away almost 2 years of their grass court development with such a short season.

An AO is not out of the question tho!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y4m05o4lbQ

Girly Gal

It's only a matter of time before Djokovic gets to 21 and probably more, Nadal of course could wiln a FO or two yet, depending on his fitness, he seems to have almost given up on the other slams in the hope of staying reasonably fit for the FO. It's doubtful if Federer will even return again, probably targeting a farewell at Wimbledon, but, realistically not a hope of winning it.

They could all yet finish on 20, which would actually be quite fitting, but, I think Federer stays on 20, Nadal might make it to 21 and Djokovic 22/23 depending how his fitness holds.

Right now Djokovic and Federer have the same record in slam finals 20/31 with Nadal 20/28. Nadal's ridiculous record at the FO kinda tilts things here.

Djokovic has now lost to 5 different players in slam finals- Nadal, Federer, Murray, Wawrinka and now Medvedev.

Nadal has lost to 3 different players- Djokovic, Federer and Wawrinka. Federer also lost to 3 different players- Djokovic, Nadal and Del Potro.

All 3 would probably have completed a calendar slam at some stage in their career had all three not come along at more or less the same time. The irony is an inferior player in the future could well do it simply because the level of opposition won't be as high.

They have given us a golden age of tennis by pushing each other. It's coming towards an end as their careers are ending / coming towards an end.

josip

On the H2H point from the US Open thread.

Where there's enough of an overlap of playing years to be worth of consideration, does H2H usually favour the younger player?

My thinking is that players' rises to their peak years are steeper than their declines where they keep playing, hoping for the odd title here and there.

Eg. Djokovic vs Federer. Djokovic has had more years playing against non-peak, old man Federer, than Federer had playing against non-peak, kiddo Djokovic,

lostcat

Not entirely sure how the ATP points will work for the rest of the year, but Djokovic will likely have to play a bit to hold onto No 1 till the end of the year.

It would be his 7th and would put him out on his own ahead of Sampras (Fedal have 5 each).

Medvedev is around 1k points behind at present but he won the last couple of tournaments of 2020 so might not be able to make up too much ground. Zverev isn't too far away either and if he has a good run he could possibly end up no 1.

josip

From what I read, Djokovic is dropping 2170 points between now and the year end but Medvedev is dropping 3840.

Zverev is 4,370 points behind at the moment, don't know how many points he's dropping, but it seems like a big ask for him.

I think Federer and Nadal will slip down further with their 2019 points not being counted and it's unlikely Federer will finish a 19th year as a top 10 player.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117888769#Comment_117888769

It's easier just to to check the ATP race to Turin which shows current year points.

Player with most points at the end of the year will be world number 1 - simple.

Djokovic is currently down to play Indian Wells in October. He might play The Paris Masters and will surely play the ATP finals to ensure that he ends up No.1 to have the outright year-end number ones of 7.

Unless he decides to take the rest of the year off and sod the world number 1 accolade!

https://www.atptour.com/en/rankings/singles-race-to-turin

Slashermcguirk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117684849#Comment_117684849

Only seeing this thread now. Djokovic level vs Federer in Australian open 2016 is the highest level of tennis I have ever witnessed. Federer was not even playing badly and he lost the first couple of sets 6-2 6-1 in about 50 minutes. I remember even the commentators that day were lost for words, just a stunned silence in the crowd at what was happening to Federer on Rod Laver arena. When Djokovic goes into his beast mode, he is literally unplayable. Nadal has said many times that Novaks top level is the highest level of tennis he has ever seen.

One other match that stands out for me was the Doha Final in 2016 (around the same time as the above match). In the final Djokovic beat Nadal 6-1 6-2. The amount of winners he was hitting was outrageous.

I actually think 2010 Nadal was next best for me and then Federer in 2006.

The Golden Miller

I think the highest level of tennis we've seen, relatively, was McEnroe for a period.

Of the current 3 you'd have to say Djokovic became the best. Minus the serve though, I think Nadal was the better all round player. Serve killed Nadal.

Wimbledon 2018 was a good example. When the ball was inplay, Nadal was far superior. But his serve far too weak

From a purely technical point of view, and as laughable as it may sound, one of the best I've seen was a young Hewitt. Despite a complete lack of power in his game, any real weapons or presence, it took an incredible amount of nous and craft to get as far as he did, to counter all his weaknesses. People forget how good he was initially

The Golden Miller

Must be annoying for Djokovic. Was potentially his next tournament away from having the most Slams. Yet if Nadal could manage to win here, he'd be very strong for France too. Come summer, Djokovic could potentially be 3 Slams away from having the most, when he was almost there. Funny how things can change so quickly.

He's unfortunate not to be going for his 24th or 25th Slam. Missed a year or two with form and personal stuff, which held him back. In contrast, Federer is fortunate to have got more than 15. Won quite a few with little competition, and won quite a few opportunistic Slams when others were injured, where he wouldn't have been favoured otherwise.

Outside the modern professional era, who has the most Slams, when you include the Pro Slams the top players of the day deferred to? Roswell? He must have over 20 when you combine Grand and Pro Slams? Laver up there too I'm sure

Royale with Cheese

Nadal won the 2017 US Open facing nobody seeded higher than 24, and again in 2019 facing nobody seeded in the top 20 until meeting Medvedev in the final who was seeded 5 (and Djokovic retired injured). You can only beat what's in front of you but nothing opportunistic about those I guess.

Nadal hasn't beaten Djokovic in 5 sets on a non clay court since 2013 and Federer since 2014, I think he's incredibly fortunate to have those two recent US Open wins.

The Golden Miller

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118540895#Comment_118540895

Didn't mention Nadal because I think overall 20 Slams would be a fair reflection of his career. Djokovic should have had more by the point imo, Federer less

The Golden Miller

Looked it up. Roswell has 23 slams

dominatinMC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118541009#Comment_118541009

Of the three, I've no doubt that Nadal should have more. For someone who is injured as often as he is (a lot of which are career threatening injuries), it's a remarkable achievement that he has 20. I know "if" doesn't exist, but if he wasn't so injury prone, I'm convinced he would have 3/4 more slams (AO 2014, Wimbledon 2009 both spring to mind).

Agree that Djokovic has let a few slide by. As you say, Fed picked up a lot of "handy" slams (if there is such a thing!) by beating mediocre competition before Nadal and Djokovic arrived on the scene.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118540895#Comment_118540895

How many slams have each of them played?

The Golden Miller

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118543456#Comment_118543456

There certainly was a period circa 09/10 where Nadal was clearly the best across all surfaces and got injured at his peak. Certainly lost out on a few there.

Do people discredit the old Pro Slams, or dismiss them, when talking about majors?

eagle eye

So got an answer to the question I asked. Nadal has played 63 majors, Djokovic has played 68 and Federer 77.

josip

All hail the new GOAT.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118554780#Comment_118554780

Based on having 1 more slam?

josip

Yeah, based on the 1 more slam ☹️

At the end of the day, it's the score on the board that counts.

And at the moment, the most common metric is GS titles, not weeks at number 1 or who's the prettiest or who would have won more if they had been allowed play (Laver and Conors, not Djokovic).

So until Djokovic finds a way to level up with Nadal, I have to wallow in my misery.

cannonballTaffyOjones

Too many French Opens in Nadals count ... but I do think he'll end up with most.

He will at worst win at least 2 more French opens, more likely 3 or 4.

And at least 2 or 3 from the other 3.

So will likely end up on 26/27 slams.

Djokovic might win one more wimbledon, the debate is sadly over.

josip

A friend told me about this site today, I can't remember seeing it before now.

https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList