Fed/Rafa/Djoker: how often they've faced the top 5 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Fed/Rafa/Djoker: how often they've faced the top 5

MIMIC
01-04-2012, 01:41 AM
I was bored and was wondering how often the Big 3 had to beat a top 5 opponent whenever they won a slam. Soooo.....

Djokovic
Slam titles: 4
Top 5 opponents faced: 7
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.75

Nadal
Slam titles: 10
Top 5 opponents faced: 13
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.3
(NOTE: Nadal faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7])

Federer
Slam titles: 16
Top 5 opponents he faced: 19
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.19
(NOTE: Federer faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7 & Nadal's 6] and 12 top 5 opponents during his first 10 slam wins [vs. Nadal's 13]. Also, he didn't play a single top 5 seed in two of his slam titles: the 2007 Australian Open [10th slam] & Wimbledon 2009 [15th slam])


Hmmmm....

eclecticist
01-04-2012, 01:51 AM
sure, federer had some luck with his slam wins, especially with his first wimbledon title, but considering that he won virtually every slam from 2004-2007 other than RG and 05 AO, you can't really blame fed that top 5 players lost before having the chance to face fed in the later stages.

Naudio Spanlatine
01-04-2012, 01:55 AM
not that much really, well some times they do go against them

RogerFedererNo1
01-04-2012, 02:19 AM
Ridiculous stats. So Federer´s US Open 2006 draw was harder than Nadal´s US Open 2010 draw.

Q 2006: Federer against world no.7 James Blake
Q 2010: Nadal against giant killer Fernando Verdasco

S 2006: Federer against world no.6 Davydenko
S 2010: Nadal against Youzhny (who won in five sets against Wawrinka in the prevoius round)

F 2006: Federer against Roddick (he used to be a slam contender)
F 2010: Nadal against Djokovic (who won in 7-5 in the 5th set two days before)

Maybe it shows only that the rest of the field gets worse so that a player like Murray can reach all slam semis in a year ...


Also, he didn't play a single top 5 seed in two of his slam titles: the 2007 Australian Open [10th slam] & Wimbledon 2009 [15th slam])[/i]


So, according to you it would have been a greater achievement if he had beaten Nadal at the Australian Open 2007 although Gonzalez was way better in that tournament. Or it would have been greater if he had beaten Murray in the Wimbledon final and Djokovic in the semi, although both of them lost a better player in the previous round.

Topspindoctor
01-04-2012, 02:28 AM
Ridiculous stats. So Federer´s US Open 2006 draw was harder than Nadal´s US Open 2010 draw.

Q 2006: Federer against world no.7 James Blake
Q 2010: Nadal against giant killer Fernando Verdasco

S 2006: Federer against world no.6 Davydenko
S 2010: Nadal against Youzhny (who won in five sets against Wawrinka in the prevoius round)

F 2006: Federer against Roddick (he used to be a slam contender)
F 2010: Nadal against Djokovic (who won in 7-5 in the 5th set two days before)

Maybe it shows only that the rest of the field gets worse so that a player like Murray can reach all slam semis in a year ...



So, according to you it would have been a greater achievement if he had beaten Nadal at the Australian Open 2007 although Gonzalez was way better in that tournament. Or it would have been greater if he had beaten Murray in the Wimbledon final and Djokovic in the semi, although both of them lost a better player in the previous round.

Don't try to sugarcoat Olderer's slam runs :rolleyes: Blake was a mug who never reached a slam SF and was Olderer's pigeon as much as Verdasco for Nadal. Both were top 10 players and Verdasco actually made a slam SF :wavey:

Second, Davydenko is a known slam choker, shit best of 5 player and another Olderer's pigeon. Youzhny actually beat Nadal comfortably on some occasions...

Lastly you are actually comparing all serve clown like Roddick to Djokovic? lol...Maybe you need a reality check. Olderer played absolute clowns in most of his GS finals, while Nadal's wins were much more impressive.

RogerFedererNo1
01-04-2012, 02:36 AM
Don't try to sugarcoat Olderer's slam runs :rolleyes: Blake was a mug who never reached a slam SF and was Olderer's pigeon as much as Verdasco for Nadal. Both were top 10 players and Verdasco actually made a slam SF :wavey:

Second, Davydenko is a known slam choker, shit best of 5 player and another Olderer's pigeon. Youzhny actually beat Nadal comfortably on some occasions...

Lastly you are actually comparing all serve clown like Roddick to Djokovic? lol...Maybe you need a reality check. Olderer played absolute clowns in most of his GS finals, while Nadal's wins were much more impressive.

All serve clown beat Nadal in 2010 and served for the match at the WTF, too. :wavey: And in 2010 Djokovic did not play that impressive (losing to Melzer after a 2-0 sets lead).

MIMIC
01-04-2012, 02:43 AM
Ridiculous stats. So Federer´s US Open 2006 draw was harder than Nadal´s US Open 2010 draw.

Q 2006: Federer against world no.7 James Blake
Q 2010: Nadal against giant killer Fernando Verdasco

S 2006: Federer against world no.6 Davydenko
S 2010: Nadal against Youzhny (who won in five sets against Wawrinka in the prevoius round)

F 2006: Federer against Roddick (he used to be a slam contender)
F 2010: Nadal against Djokovic (who won in 7-5 in the 5th set two days before)

Um, I accounted for their entire careers not just one tournament.

Maybe it shows only that the rest of the field gets worse so that a player like Murray can reach all slam semis in a year ...

Murray has a leading H2H against Federer. I know you hate him (as do I) but I can at least acknowledge that he's a very good player.



So, according to you it would have been a greater achievement if he had beaten Nadal at the Australian Open 2007 although Gonzalez was way better in that tournament. Or it would have been greater if he had beaten Murray in the Wimbledon final and Djokovic in the semi, although both of them lost a better player in the previous round.

According to ME? I didn't make any conclusions. You're way too defensive.

mark73
01-04-2012, 02:43 AM
I was bored and was wondering how often the Big 3 had to beat a top 5 opponent whenever they won a slam. Soooo.....

Djokovic
Slam titles: 4
Top 5 opponents faced: 7
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.75

Nadal
Slam titles: 10
Top 5 opponents faced: 13
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.3
(NOTE: Nadal faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7])

Federer
Slam titles: 16
Top 5 opponents he faced: 19
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.19
(NOTE: Federer faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7 & Nadal's 6] and 12 top 5 opponents during his first 10 slam wins [vs. Nadal's 13]. Also, he didn't play a single top 5 seed in two of his slam titles: the 2007 Australian Open [10th slam] & Wimbledon 2009 [15th slam])


Hmmmm....

Why top 5? It should be top 4. Those are the guys you meet in the semis and finals. If you are going to include number 5 then make it top 8.

Arakasi
01-04-2012, 03:57 AM
Yes you were "bored" :rolleyes:

Believe it or not the quality of an opponent on any given day isn't determined by their seeding. If Federer wasn't playing seeded players that means they lost earlier, to better players.

It's particularly amusing that you highlight AO '07 and Wimbledon '09, two tournaments in which Federer played by far the best player from the bottom half in the final.

MIMIC
01-04-2012, 04:50 AM
Yes you were "bored" :rolleyes:

Believe it or not the quality of an opponent on any given day isn't determined by their seeding. If Federer wasn't playing seeded players that means they lost earlier, to better players

So there were more one-time wonder players back then?

It's particularly amusing that you highlight AO '07 and Wimbledon '09, two tournaments in which Federer played by far the best player from the bottom half in the final.

Well the thread IS titled how often they've faced the top 5 :wavey: It's highlighted because it contradicts the thread title. I thought that was obvious.

finishingmove
01-04-2012, 05:50 AM
Ridiculous stats. So Federer´s US Open 2006 draw was harder than Nadal´s US Open 2010 draw.

Q 2006: Federer against world no.7 James Blake
Q 2010: Nadal against giant killer Fernando Verdasco

S 2006: Federer against world no.6 Davydenko
S 2010: Nadal against Youzhny (who won in five sets against Wawrinka in the prevoius round)

F 2006: Federer against Roddick (he used to be a slam contender)
F 2010: Nadal against Djokovic (who won in 7-5 in the 5th set two days before)



:retard: clearly nadal had the harder draw

Arakasi
01-04-2012, 06:43 AM
So there were more one-time wonder players back then?

In a word, yes. Even as recently as '09 we've had Soderling, Roddick and Del Potro play fantastic tennis in slam runs even though they weren't seeded top 5.

Not that I'd consider any of those three "one-time wonder players".

barbadosan
01-04-2012, 07:45 AM
I was bored and was wondering how often the Big 3 had to beat a top 5 opponent whenever they won a slam. Soooo.....

Djokovic
Slam titles: 4
Top 5 opponents faced: 7
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.75

Nadal
Slam titles: 10
Top 5 opponents faced: 13
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.3
(NOTE: Nadal faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7])

Federer
Slam titles: 16
Top 5 opponents he faced: 19
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.19
(NOTE: Federer faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7 & Nadal's 6] and 12 top 5 opponents during his first 10 slam wins [vs. Nadal's 13]. Also, he didn't play a single top 5 seed in two of his slam titles: the 2007 Australian Open [10th slam] & Wimbledon 2009 [15th slam])


Hmmmm....

Congrats Mimic. I have it on good authority that these stats will mean that the tennis authorities will now proceed to Fed's house, and remove at least 6 of his GS trophies, and furthermore, all traces of his having won them will be deleted from the record books :angel:

Sunset of Age
01-04-2012, 09:36 AM
MIMIC trying to downplay Fed's (and Nadal's) GS achievements with lousy irrelevant statistics again. What else is new. :bowdown:

GSMnadal
01-04-2012, 09:43 AM
Time to start a 'how often they've lost to a complete random mug outside of the top 5 in slams' thread

MIMIC
01-04-2012, 10:58 AM
Congrats Mimic. I have it on good authority that these stats will mean that the tennis authorities will now proceed to Fed's house, and remove at least 6 of his GS trophies, and furthermore, all traces of his having won them will be deleted from the record books :angel:

MIMIC trying to downplay Fed's (and Nadal's) GS achievements with lousy irrelevant statistics again. What else is new. :bowdown:

I didn't realize this was a Federtard circle jerk forum and every stat had to suggest that he did everything better than everyone else. My apologies. :sad:

Chirag
01-04-2012, 11:20 AM
nice staats but I think it should be the top 8 .Also since Fed has won 12 slams more than Novak ,thats why his number is low

American278
01-04-2012, 11:31 AM
Don't try to sugarcoat Olderer's slam runs :rolleyes: Blake was a mug who never reached a slam SF and was Olderer's pigeon as much as Verdasco for Nadal. Both were top 10 players and Verdasco actually made a slam SF :wavey:

Second, Davydenko is a known slam choker, shit best of 5 player and another Olderer's pigeon. Youzhny actually beat Nadal comfortably on some occasions...

Lastly you are actually comparing all serve clown like Roddick to Djokovic? lol...Maybe you need a reality check. Olderer played absolute clowns in most of his GS finals, while Nadal's wins were much more impressive.

till 2009 roddick had djokovics number;) so at this time you couldn`t call roddick an all serve mug and it was just fair to compare them ...

paseo
01-04-2012, 11:34 AM
The top players (top 5), right now, almost always reach the QF/SF of slams. So slam winners of the last couple of years tend to face fellow top players. Whereas before, upsets happened more often. Some guy ranked outside the top 5 would play crazy tennis for 2 weeks and found themselves in the later stages of slams. Simple really.

The reason for that (sentence in Bold), however... (weak era, homogenized surface, top 4 too strong, etc.) is up for debate.

American278
01-04-2012, 11:36 AM
I was bored and was wondering how often the Big 3 had to beat a top 5 opponent whenever they won a slam. Soooo.....

Djokovic
Slam titles: 4
Top 5 opponents faced: 7
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.75

Nadal
Slam titles: 10
Top 5 opponents faced: 13
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.3
(NOTE: Nadal faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7])

Federer
Slam titles: 16
Top 5 opponents he faced: 19
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.19
(NOTE: Federer faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7 & Nadal's 6] and 12 top 5 opponents during his first 10 slam wins [vs. Nadal's 13]. Also, he didn't play a single top 5 seed in two of his slam titles: the 2007 Australian Open [10th slam] & Wimbledon 2009 [15th slam])


Hmmmm....

but you forget that rankings can lie...look at the australian open 2004...safin wasn't even seeded due to injury ...you know what? he played like a top 5player;) no offence to your stats but they are most useless because rankings doesn`t always tell you the truth about players abilities , form and so on

leng jai
01-04-2012, 11:42 AM
Most of the time when a player is in the QF+ of a tournament they are in form and playing above their usual standard. The difference in the last few years is that the top 4 are making the SF most of the time regardless of how well they play.

finishingmove
01-04-2012, 11:55 AM
Then there are some players who will never beat the top 4 due to either mental or skill gaps. Playing them is considered an easing circumstance.

bokehlicious
01-04-2012, 12:15 PM
Useless thread by a bored noletroll.

Only relevant thing to the History books is:

16>10>4

Period.

Singularity
01-04-2012, 12:17 PM
I didn't realize this was a Federtard circle jerk forum and every stat had to suggest that he did everything better than everyone else. My apologies. :sad:
What does it mean to say that Nadal faced 0.11 more top 5 players than Federer per GS? You haven't given us any reason why we should care about these statistics.

Especially since they tell us nothing about players outside the top 5 (is it 'better' to beat 2 players ranked 6 vs. 1 player ranked 5?), and because they tell us nothing about players' form. Maybe if this thread had any kind of analysis, it might not be totally worthless.

Kat_YYZ
01-04-2012, 12:19 PM
Useless thread by a bored noletroll.

Only relevant thing to the History books is:

16>10>4

Period.

Sad, really. it could be understandable a month ago but tennis is back, there are live matches on, and this guy harping on some numbers game :shrug:

Shinoj
01-04-2012, 12:41 PM
To be frank, Nole had it tougher than Nadal and Federer to win his slams. The competition was much tougher than before.

Chirag
01-04-2012, 12:42 PM
whats wrong with giving numbers .I believe he needs to give it for the top 8 but still 12 slam difference screws the numbers

MIMIC
01-04-2012, 02:02 PM
What does it mean to say that Nadal faced 0.11 more top 5 players than Federer per GS? You haven't given us any reason why we should care about these statistics.

Especially since they tell us nothing about players outside the top 5 (is it 'better' to beat 2 players ranked 6 vs. 1 player ranked 5?), and because they tell us nothing about players' form. Maybe if this thread had any kind of analysis, it might not be totally worthless.

How bout I post the career resumes of every single player they have ever faced (and every player that THEY'VE ever faced) so we can be as thorough as possible, huh? :rolleyes: They've all played shitty seeded opponents and they've all played in-form unseeded opponents. This isn't just exclusive to Federer. So let's just ignore that please. If anything, comparing the actual top 5 opponents would be more beneficial.

And yes, I arbitrarily drew the line at top 5. I could just as easily ask you is it better to beat 2 players ranked top 7 vs. 1 player ranked top 6 and could go on and on until we're talking about a player ranked No. 300 so let's just leave it at top 5, OK? When you think "Top 5", you don't think "untalented clowns" do you? So it's not like I'm trying to disingenuously create a group of guys to suit a particular agenda or something.


whats wrong with giving numbers .I believe he needs to give it for the top 8 but still 12 slam difference screws the numbers

It's in the OP: "Federer faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7 & Nadal's 6] and 12 top 5 opponents during his first 10 slam wins [vs. Nadal's 13]."

Useless thread by a bored noletroll.

Only relevant thing to the History books is:

16>10>4

Period.

You are free to create a "This is the number of slams Novak, Rafa, and Roger have" thread, BTW :wavey:

abraxas21
01-04-2012, 02:51 PM
Most of the time when a player is in the QF+ of a tournament they are in form and playing above their usual standard. The difference in the last few years is that the top 4 are making the SF most of the time regardless of how well they play.

+1

Singularity
01-04-2012, 03:06 PM
How bout I post the career resumes of every single player they have ever faced (and every player that THEY'VE ever faced) so we can be as thorough as possible, huh? :rolleyes: They've all played shitty seeded opponents and they've all played in-form unseeded opponents. This isn't just exclusive to Federer. So let's just ignore that please. If anything, comparing the actual top 5 opponents would be more beneficial.

And yes, I arbitrarily drew the line at top 5. I could just as easily ask you is it better to beat 2 players ranked top 7 vs. 1 player ranked top 6 and could go on and on until we're talking about a player ranked No. 300 so let's just leave it at top 5, OK?
It doesn't make the question any less valid, does it? If you want to evaluate the overall level of opposition in each slam, you have to consider all the opponents; not just the ones who fit within the top 5. Your argument is: "well that's too much work". OK, but that's just means we don't reach any conclusions.

It doesn't mean you can decide arbitrarily, just because you're too lazy to do the actual work (i.e that outside the top 5 there was no difference in the average rank of opponent). In any case you haven't even made any arguments, based on the data you supplied. Data without interpretation is meaningless.

So Nadal faced 0.11 more top 5 players per slam than Federer. Great! Do we know how often each player towelled off during the change of ends? Maybe I should present that data in a new thread.

romismak
01-04-2012, 03:36 PM
No Roger won´t have multi slam year. I have few scenarios, with Roger winning 1 slam -
Don´have any scenario for him with AO or RG, can´t imagine with that. He can win either Wimbledon or USO but not both of them. At Wimby if he play good he can win - i can see him as biggest favorit if he is playing good, at USO if he will play good still, Nole can beat him and who knows how good will be Delpo or somebody else, like Murray finally playing his maximum. Even 1 slam scenario for Roger is 50-50 maximum i think, 2 slams NO.

bokehlicious
01-04-2012, 03:38 PM
No Roger won´t have multi slam year. I have few scenarios, with Roger winning 1 slam -
Don´have any scenario for him with AO or RG, can´t imagine with that. He can win either Wimbledon or USO but not both of them. At Wimby if he play good he can win - i can see him as biggest favorit if he is playing good, at USO if he will play good still, Nole can beat him and who knows how good will be Delpo or somebody else, like Murray finally playing his maximum. Even 1 slam scenario for Roger is 50-50 maximum i think, 2 slams NO.

Wrong thread? :scratch:

Chirag
01-04-2012, 03:42 PM
the fifth player has a 1/4th chance of drawing the mentioned people .With top 8 ,that wont be the case since every member will draw at least 1 member of the top 8 making it more fair .Also as you can see the difference between them is still the same almost

romismak
01-04-2012, 03:45 PM
Wrong thread? :scratch:

Yes my mistake i had opened both and didn´t realize that i am posting in another:D

Pirata.
01-04-2012, 04:06 PM
Also, he didn't play a single top 5 seed in two of his slam titles: the 2007 Australian Open [10th slam] & Wimbledon 2009 [15th slam]

Roddick > Murray/Djokovic on grass in 2009 :shrug:

Macbrother
01-04-2012, 04:10 PM
Roddick > Murray/Djokovic on grass in 2009 :shrug:

Not to mention Gonzalez was far and away the 2nd best player in the tournament in '07. Once again a case of using statistics to purport a very thinly veiled agenda.

Saberq
01-04-2012, 04:19 PM
Not to mention Gonzalez was far and away the 2nd best player in the tournament in '07. Once again a case of using statistics to purport a very thinly veiled agenda.

and yet if you compare him to today's top players he was mediocre

Singularity
01-04-2012, 04:27 PM
and yet if you compare him to today's top players he was mediocre
In his match against Haas in the semis he made 42 winners and 3 unforced errors.

Sunset of Age
01-04-2012, 04:29 PM
and yet if you compare him to today's top players he was mediocre

Did you ever watch these 'mediocre' players in their primes, or have you just started watching tennis in 2011? :rolleyes:

Mystique
01-04-2012, 04:33 PM
and yet if you compare him to today's top players he was mediocre


:rolleyes:
No he is NOT. Gonzo in AO'07 was better than Murray in AO'11 and '10, Nadal W'11, Berdych W'11....
Did you see how he was playing back then? His FH has a guillotine and he would have eaten Murray or Berdych alive. And btb, he dismissed Nadal in straights and made like 2 or 3 UEs in the semi during that run. Show me how today's top players are better

Orka_n
01-04-2012, 04:37 PM
and yet if you compare him to today's top players he was mediocre:haha: Noletards, I tell ya...

EddieNero
01-04-2012, 04:38 PM
Gonzo AO'07 was on a sick roll, played out of his mind in most matches and also performed at least well against Federer.

barbadosan
01-04-2012, 05:15 PM
and yet if you compare him to today's top players he was mediocre

I have to tell you, you couldn't have chosen a worst example to make that contention about. If you want, pm me and I'll point you to all Gonzo's matches in that AO '07 run, so at least you can speak from some kind of informed position

r3d_d3v1l_
01-04-2012, 05:30 PM
Did you ever watch these 'mediocre' players in their primes, or have you just started watching tennis in 2011? :rolleyes:

I bet he´ll tell you that he follows Djokovic since the very beginning!

These tards are as annoying as Barçatards. A bunch of gloryhunters.

HKz
01-04-2012, 05:37 PM
You know, one could easily turn it around and claim that the reason Federer met less top 5 players during his runs because of the "superb depth" of the field while Djokovic, and I guess Nadal in this case, have met more because Federer, Murray, Djokovic, Nadal are playing in a "weak field."

I'm not saying that is the case, but I'm just pointing out the mere hypocrisy of MTF logic. Any stat can mean anything you want it to be depending on your biases.

E: However, as several have pointed out over the years, 2004 did have a quite strong top 10.

Saberq
01-04-2012, 05:39 PM
OK I am sick of these Fedtard mugs on this site....listen up.....Gonzalez in AO 07 was worse than Rafa in AO 09,Novak in AO 08,2011 and Tsonga AO 08 ...case closed

HKz
01-04-2012, 05:41 PM
OK I am sick of these Fedtard mugs on this site....listen up.....Gonzalez in AO 07 was worse than Rafa in AO 09,Novak in AO 08,2011 and Tsonga AO 08 ...case closed

An individual case means the whole point. Great logic by the typical lack of tennis knowledge fool.

Saberq
01-04-2012, 05:51 PM
An individual case means the whole point. Great logic by the typical lack of tennis knowledge fool.

you have been reported again ....

Looner
01-04-2012, 05:53 PM
The only thing this tells us is that the same players are playing against each other more and more. This is nothing more and more as a result of homogenization of surfaces and concentration of power (so to say) in the top 4/ top 3.

you have been reported again ....

You must be joking otherwise this is rich coming from you. Plus the guy speaks the truth. It's your problem you can't see it :wavey:

TBkeeper
01-04-2012, 06:35 PM
It only shows that todays field is extremely weak outside of top 5.....

Saberq
01-04-2012, 06:44 PM
You must be joking otherwise this is rich coming from you. Plus the guy speaks the truth. It's your problem you can't see it :wavey:

he called me a fool ........

Macbrother
01-04-2012, 06:56 PM
OK I am sick of these Fedtard mugs on this site....listen up.....Gonzalez in AO 07 was worse than Rafa in AO 09,Novak in AO 08,2011 and Tsonga AO 08 ...case closed

:lol: What is it about MTF that draws these people in?

Sapeod
01-04-2012, 07:19 PM
he called me a fool ........
He called you a fool? Cry us a river :rolleyes:

EddieNero
01-04-2012, 07:22 PM
OK I am sick of these Fedtard mugs on this site....listen up.....Gonzalez in AO 07 was worse than Rafa in AO 09,Novak in AO 08,2011 and Tsonga AO 08 ...case closed

I suppose you have no clue which Gonzalez we are talking about.
Remember, tennis did non set off at AO 2008.

Saberq
01-04-2012, 07:23 PM
He called you a fool? Cry us a river :rolleyes:

I just stated the fact

Saberq
01-04-2012, 07:24 PM
I suppose you have no clue which Gonzalez we are talking about.
Remember, tennis did non set off at AO 2008.

ok grampa go watch Laver on youtube or something

arm
01-04-2012, 07:27 PM
I think it doesn't make sense to make this stats about the top5. Either top 4 or top 8.

v-money
01-04-2012, 07:28 PM
All luck this Federer guy...

HKz
01-04-2012, 07:29 PM
you have been reported again ....

Bro, your logic and reasoning is absolutely poor. If you are really crying about being called a fool, then gosh, I'm not sure what other words I can use without you getting butthurt.

ok grampa go watch Laver on youtube or something

This crappy Gonzo schooled Nadal along the way to the final BTW.

Saberq
01-04-2012, 07:34 PM
Bro, your logic and reasoning is absolutely poor. If you are really crying about being called a fool, then gosh, I'm not sure what other words I can use without you getting butthurt.



This crappy Gonzo schooled Nadal along the way to the final BTW.

dude you can say all you want to me just dont insult because I never insulted you deal?

anyway Nadal sucked on harcourts at that time

Looner
01-04-2012, 07:42 PM
To say Nadal sucked on HC in 2007 is like saying Nadal sucks on HC now. So, yes, your reasoning is way poor. Tell me the difference between Nadal then and Nadal now on HCs with proper examples.

Saberq
01-04-2012, 07:51 PM
To say Nadal sucked on HC in 2007 is like saying Nadal sucks on HC now. So, yes, your reasoning is way poor. Tell me the difference between Nadal then and Nadal now on HCs with proper examples.

how many GS finals did he play and win on hardcourt in 2006,2007,2008?

HKz
01-04-2012, 07:58 PM
dude you can say all you want to me just dont insult because I never insulted you deal?

anyway Nadal sucked on harcourts at that time

I won't insult you if you use proper logic. Deal?

how many GS finals did he play and win on hardcourt in 2006,2007,2008?

None, he only started winning when the field had even more "depth" after 2008 :rolleyes: notice the hypocrisy here?

RogerFedererNo1
01-04-2012, 08:02 PM
how many GS finals did he play and win on hardcourt in 2006,2007,2008?

He won olympic gold in 2008. And he won hardcourt masters in 2005 and 2007, nowadays he can´t :rolleyes: The only reason that he has not reached GS finals were peak Tsonga, peak Gonzalez and peak Murray (US Open 2008 were Murray´s peak IMO). Also, he reached the semis at the TMC in 2006 and 2007.

Pirata.
01-04-2012, 08:34 PM
and yet if you compare him to today's top players he was mediocre

:haha:

DrJules
01-04-2012, 08:36 PM
I was bored and was wondering how often the Big 3 had to beat a top 5 opponent whenever they won a slam. Soooo.....

Djokovic
Slam titles: 4
Top 5 opponents faced: 7
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.75

Nadal
Slam titles: 10
Top 5 opponents faced: 13
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.3
(NOTE: Nadal faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7])

Federer
Slam titles: 16
Top 5 opponents he faced: 19
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.19
(NOTE: Federer faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7 & Nadal's 6] and 12 top 5 opponents during his first 10 slam wins [vs. Nadal's 13]. Also, he didn't play a single top 5 seed in two of his slam titles: the 2007 Australian Open [10th slam] & Wimbledon 2009 [15th slam])


Hmmmm....

Interesting statistics and have several comments:

1) Each GS started with the top 5 seeds present so it is not Federer's fault that they lost. Federer does hold the longest winning streak against top 10 players of 26 from 2003 to 2005 so may have beaten a top 5 player:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-Grand_Slam_tennis_statistics_and_records

2) Could indicate a marginal reduction in the depth of the field resulting in fewer upsets so top players progress more often to later stages to lose.

3) An advantage of being seeded 1/2 is you tend to face 7/8 in the quarter final while 3/4 face 5/6 in the quarter final. A higher ranking reduces you chance of facing number 5 in the quarter final.

4) In the end you can only beat the player in front of you.

leng jai
01-04-2012, 09:24 PM
Gotta love top 4 tards commenting on players they never watch. Gonzo at the AO 2007 was probably one of the hottest GS streaks a player has ever been on.

Orka_n
01-04-2012, 09:58 PM
ok grampa go watch Laver on youtube or somethingShow some respect for champions of the past, gloryhunter.

Saberq
01-04-2012, 10:11 PM
Show some respect for champions of the past, gloryhunter.

screw Laver .....anyway a gloryhunter is a person that supports a player only because he is winning ...need I remind you that Nole was not winning shit in the past 3 years

HKz
01-04-2012, 10:26 PM
screw Laver .....anyway a gloryhunter is a person that supports a player only because he is winning ...need I remind you that Nole was not winning shit in the past 3 years

Djokovic starts dominating = 2011
Saberq join date = 2011

Not a gloryhunter for sure.

You are beginning to really establish yourself as one of the worst posters here with Clay Fail, Failerko, tard da fail and Tospin Failtor.


Fool.

Dyraise
01-04-2012, 10:30 PM
Top 8:
Nadal 18 >> 1,8
Federer 27 >> 1,69
(29 would be 1,81)

Saberq
01-04-2012, 10:45 PM
Djokovic starts dominating = 2011
Saberq join date = 2011

Not a gloryhunter for sure.

You are beginning to really establish yourself as one of the worst posters here with Clay Fail, Failerko, tard da fail and Tospin Failtor.


Fool.

what does that prove?nothing ...I have been visiting these forums since 2006 I think...I never joined till Feb 2011...and even then Novak had like 1 tournament win AO at that point

SerialKillerToBe
01-04-2012, 10:50 PM
It's common knowledge that Federer faced a bunch of mugs in most of his slam wins. We didn't need actual statistics, but this is nice either way.

Looner
01-04-2012, 11:18 PM
Oh, boy, the amount of hate for Djoko these tards raise is amazing. I mean if you guys had at least SOME tennis knowledge and TRIED to objectively look at things we would not have to explain to you stuff from 2-3 years ago. Really, shame you will leave once your boy starts getting spanked around. I hope it doesn't happen too soon since he seems to have decided to play attacking tennis and the pig apparently believes he can still beat him so I would to see some more roasting.

Saberq
01-04-2012, 11:27 PM
Oh, boy, the amount of hate for Djoko these tards raise is amazing. I mean if you guys had at least SOME tennis knowledge and TRIED to objectively look at things we would not have to explain to you stuff from 2-3 years ago. Really, shame you will leave once your boy starts getting spanked around. I hope it doesn't happen too soon since he seems to have decided to play attacking tennis and the pig apparently believes he can still beat him so I would to see some more roasting.

wow you really hate Nadal huh?

Looner
01-04-2012, 11:52 PM
Yes, I do and I am not afraid to admit it :P. But I did like Djoko's game when he was rising up with attacking all-court tennis. Now that has gone to the dogs thanks to slow and homogenized surfaces which is also due to Uncle Mafioso and his butt-picking nephew taking every opportunity to whine about court speeds. So the roots of most of what is wrong with tennis nowadays can be traced to the pig.

masterclass
01-05-2012, 01:18 AM
I was bored and was wondering how often the Big 3 had to beat a top 5 opponent whenever they won a slam. Soooo.....

Djokovic
Slam titles: 4
Top 5 opponents faced: 7
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.75

Nadal
Slam titles: 10
Top 5 opponents faced: 13
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.3
(NOTE: Nadal faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7])

Federer
Slam titles: 16
Top 5 opponents he faced: 19
Number of top 5 opponents per title: 1.19
(NOTE: Federer faced 6 top 5 opponents during his first 4 slam wins [vs. Djokovic's 7 & Nadal's 6] and 12 top 5 opponents during his first 10 slam wins [vs. Nadal's 13]. Also, he didn't play a single top 5 seed in two of his slam titles: the 2007 Australian Open [10th slam] & Wimbledon 2009 [15th slam])


Hmmmm....

The "faced" or head-to-head statistic can be a misleading statistic if misused.

As the winner in a slam, how many chances does one have to play 1 of the top 5 seeds? It is at most 2 or 3, 2 if #6 is in one's half, 3 if #5. Let's call it 2.5 players:). And that is if all top 5 seeds play to their seeding. If they don't, then it's fewer than 2.5. One simply can't "face" players that either:

Are not in one's part of the draw, or
Don't achieve results commensurate to their seeding, which could be because the top 5 seeded player had an off day, or the player beating the top 5 seed had a great day, or a combination of both. Depending on one's outlook, one could paint a picture that the competition below 5th seed was stronger, or that some of the top 5 seeded players were weaker, or a combination of both.

Ultimately, the winner will have defeated all of the possible top 5 seeds (4 in the case of these 3 top players) either directly, or indirectly by virtue of beating the player that beat the seed, and the win is all that matters.

Would Rafael Nadal say that Roger Federer's 2009 Roland Garros win was tainted in any way because Robin Soderling beat him and thus Roger didn't have to play him head-to-head? Nonsense, Nadal would simply congratulate Federer in doing what he couldn't do; in the final, Federer beat an on-fire #23 seed Soderling who had mowed down 4 seeds ranked higher than he was.

At Roland Garros 2010, #2 seed Rafael Nadal turned the tables, and beat Robin Soderling (#5 seed 1 year later) in the final, after Mr. Soderling beat #1 seed Mr. Federer in the QF, while #3 seed Mr. Djokovic lost to #22 seed Jürgen Melzer in the QF. So Mr. Nadal didn't have to face #1 Roger Federer or #3 Novak Djokovic, but did directly defeat the players that beat them. I doubt that Mr. Federer or Mr. Djokovic would say that Mr. Nadal won only because he didn't have to face them head-to-head. No, they lost, he won, end of story.

Respectfully,
masterclass

rocketassist
01-05-2012, 01:20 AM
MIMIC being a spaz again. New year #sameoldshit

Sunset of Age
01-05-2012, 01:26 AM
I didn't realize this was a Federtard circle jerk forum and every stat had to suggest that he did everything better than everyone else. My apologies. :sad:

I guessed you missed out on the 'minor' addition in my comment that your 'statistical evidence' doesn't just downplays Federer, but Nadal, too.

:wavey: I'm awaiting much fun in the upcoming season, if only for Djokotards like you.
16 > 10 >>>>>>> 4. Sorry, but THAT is the statistic that counts.

Whether it will change, and to what order, remains to be seen.

Saberq
01-05-2012, 01:36 AM
I guessed you missed out on the 'minor' addition in my comment that your 'statistical evidence' doesn't just downplays Federer, but Nadal, too.

:wavey: I'm awaiting much fun in the upcoming season, if only for Djokotards like you.
16 > 10 >>>>>>> 4. Sorry, but THAT is the statistic that counts.

Whether it will change, and to what order, remains to be seen.

god you're pathetic ....well any person that likes Fed and Nadal in the same time get's like that

Sunset of Age
01-05-2012, 01:43 AM
god you're pathetic ....well any person that likes Fed and Nadal in the same time get's like that

Sure, honey. Coming from you, it's a compliment. :kiss:

Chirag
01-05-2012, 03:20 AM
that AO run by Gonzalez was remarkable .Why do you sat Tsonga's was better when GOnzalez's was equally good if not better .The players he beat were

R3 Hewitt -you know how tough it is to beat someone when the crowd supports them fully ,thats why many say of Novak fans say Federer beat Djokovic this year :)
R4-Blake-he was in a run of form and had just reached the finals of the year end championship
QF-Nadal-no saying here .He would just win Indian wells later beating Novak in the final
SF-Haas-42 winners and 3 unforced errors

Thats a great run definately and he only lost because Federer was at his best ever in that event :)He definately would have beaten Murray here

MIMIC
01-05-2012, 03:46 AM
It doesn't make the question any less valid, does it? If you want to evaluate the overall level of opposition in each slam, you have to consider all the opponents; not just the ones who fit within the top 5. Your argument is: "well that's too much work". OK, but that's just means we don't reach any conclusions.

All you're going to do is make UNSUBSTANTIATED claims about Djokovic's opponents to detract from his victories, so why even go there? Here: I'll even set it up for you. Let's take a look at Federer, Djokovic's, and Nadal's very first slam and consider ALL the opponents:

Djokovic played (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles): Becker, Bolelli, Querrey, (19)Hewitt, (5)Ferrer, (1)Federer, and Tsonga
Nadal played (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles): Burgsmüller, Malisse, (30)Gasquet, (23)Grosjean, (20)Ferrer, (1)Federer, and Puerta.
Federer played (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Wimbledon_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Sin gles): Lee, Koubek, Fish, Lopez, (8)Schalken, (5)Roddick, and Philippoussis.

Anything jump out at you? How many cripples did Djokovic had to face and how many legends did Federer had to power through? Because as we all know, seed is irrelevant, right?


It doesn't mean you can decide arbitrarily, just because you're too lazy to do the actual work (i.e that outside the top 5 there was no difference in the average rank of opponent). In any case you haven't even made any arguments, based on the data you supplied. Data without interpretation is meaningless.

Maybe the concept has escaped you but it's quite possible to set up boundaries for an argument and not jeopardize the conclusion because of what has been omitted. I know you want to include as much superfluous information as possible in an attempt to bury the main argument but I'd rather not indulge in that nonsense.

And here's an argument: Djokovic's faced tougher opponents.

So Nadal faced 0.11 more top 5 players per slam than Federer. Great! Do we know how often each player towelled off during the change of ends? Maybe I should present that data in a new thread.

Maybe you should and we'll see how many people care :lol:

Arakasi
01-05-2012, 03:49 AM
3) An advantage of being seeded 1/2 is you tend to face 7/8 in the quarter final while 3/4 face 5/6 in the quarter final. A higher ranking reduces you chance of facing number 5 in the quarter final.

That isn't true. Unless you're suggesting draws are fixed.

rocketassist
01-05-2012, 03:57 AM
All you're going to do is make UNSUBSTANTIATED claims about Djokovic's opponents to detract from his victories, so why even go there? Here: I'll even set it up for you. Let's take a look at Federer, Djokovic's, and Nadal's very first slam and consider ALL the opponents:

Djokovic played (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles): Becker, Bolelli, Querrey, (19)Hewitt, (5)Ferrer, (1)Federer, and Tsonga
Nadal played (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles): Burgsmüller, Malisse, (30)Gasquet, (23)Grosjean, (20)Ferrer, (1)Federer, and Puerta.
Federer played (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Wimbledon_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Sin gles): Lee, Koubek, Fish, Lopez, (8)Schalken, (5)Roddick, and Philippoussis.

Anything jump out at you? How many cripples did Djokovic had to face and how many legends did Federer had to power through? Because as we all know, seed is irrelevant, right?




Maybe the concept has escaped you but it's quite possible to set up boundaries for an argument and not jeopardize the conclusion because of what has been omitted. I know you want to include as much superfluous information as possible in an attempt to bury the main argument but I'd rather not indulge in that nonsense.

And here's an argument: Djokovic's faced tougher opponents.



Maybe you should and we'll see how many people care :lol:


Fed's 03 Wimbledon >>> Djokovic's 08 AO

You are absolutely pathetic, like the baby who can't handle being on the ropes in a debate so spins their own take on statistics to try and get one over.

MIMIC
01-05-2012, 04:10 AM
Fed's 03 Wimbledon >>> Djokovic's 08 AO


Interesting analysis. It's so rock solid and persuasive. You sure you did this independently? IMO, it's too much work for just one person to put three greater than signs in a row like that.

Saberq
01-05-2012, 04:39 AM
Fed's 03 Wimbledon >>> Djokovic's 08 AO

You are absolutely pathetic, like the baby who can't handle being on the ropes in a debate so spins their own take on statistics to try and get one over.

you just failed man.....and you were doing good for the long time :cool:

arm
01-05-2012, 10:24 AM
I guessed you missed out on the 'minor' addition in my comment that your 'statistical evidence' doesn't just downplays Federer, but Nadal, too.

:wavey: I'm awaiting much fun in the upcoming season, if only for Djokotards like you.
16 > 10 >>>>>>> 4. Sorry, but THAT is the statistic that counts.

Whether it will change, and to what order, remains to be seen.

Sorry karin, but I have to correct on this one because you are being biased when making the maths. :p

16>>>>>>>10>>>>>>>4 because 16-10=10-4 :nerner: