Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,970 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I will start with a deep look at the grand slam tally of each.

Federer:
20 Slams won, 31 Slam Finals played, 6-1-8-5 Slam distribution, 7-5-12-7 Final distribution.
Slams won without Dropping a set: 2 (AO 2007; Wim 2017)
Slams Finals lost in straights: 1 (at RG, his weakest slam)
Slam Finals lost in 5 sets: 5 ( 3 at his dominant slam and 2 at others)
Success in his Favorite slam: 8/12 : (3/8 won in straights; 3/8 won in 4 setters, 2/8 won in 5 setters: Average sets per final won : 3,87 (favorite venue)
FIn in thight 4 sets): Average sets per final lost: 4,75 (favorite venue)
Success outside his Fav slam: 12/19: (7/12 in straights; 3/12 won in 4 setter matches, 2/12 lost won in 5 setters ): Average sets per final won : 3,58 (non-favorite venue)
Finals Lost outside his Fav Slam: 7/19: ( 2/7 lost in 5 setter; 4/7 lost in 4 setters; 1/7 lost in straights): Average sets per final lost: 4,14 (non-favorite venue)

Nadal:
20 Slams won, 28 Slam Finals played, 1-13-2-4 Slam distribution, 5-13-5-5 Final distribution.
Slams won without Dropping a set: 4 (RG 2008; RG 2010; RG 2017; RG 2020)
Slams Finals lost in straights: 1 (at AO, his weakest slam)
Slam Finals lost in 5 sets: 3 ( 2 in Australia and 1 in Wimbledon)
Success in his Favorite slam 13/13 (6/13 finals won in straights, 7/13 finals won in 4 sets...never needed to go to 5 sets ): Average sets per final won : 3,53 (favorite venue)
Success outside his Fav slam: 7/15: ( 2/7 in straights, 2/7 won in 4 setters, and, 3/7 finals won in 5 setter matches, ) : Average sets per final won : 4,14 (non-favorite venue)
Finals Lost outside his fav Slam: 8/15: (3/8 finals lost in close 5 setter matches, 4/8 lost in 4 setters,and only 1/8 in straight): Average sets per final lost:4,25 (non-favorite venue)


Djokovic:
17 Slams won, 27 Slam Finals played, 8-1-5-3 Slam distribution, 8-5-6-8 Final distribution.
Slams won without Dropping a set: 0
Slams Finals lost in straights: 3 (1 At Wimbledon, RG and USO)
Slam Finals lost in 5 sets: 1 (USO 2012)
Success in his Favorite slam 8/8 (3/8 times won final in straights ;3/8 times in 4 setter; needed 2/8 times to play 5 ): Average sets per final won : 3,87 (favorite venue)
Success outside his Fav slam: 9/19: (2/9 won in straights 5/9 finals lost in 4 setter matches, 2/9 won in 5 setters.: Average sets per final won : 4.0 (non-favorite venue)
Finals Lost outside his fav Slam: 10/19: (1/10 lost in 5 setter; 6/10 lost in 4 setter and 3/10 lost in straights): Average sets per final lost: 3,8 (non-favorite venue)


Interpreting the Data:

Dominant Slam venue:

Nadal has been the best at dominant venue with 13 finals, 13 victories and the most convincing final display .. averaging the lower amount of set played per average final won (3,53 sets). Nadal also has 4 slams in his favorite slam where he didn't even drop a set in the whole tournament, having two of the five most impressive runs in slams history (lesser games dropped)

Djokovic and Federer have the same amount of titles (8) and sets needed to win the final of those titles ( 3,87 sets), however Federer has 4 extra finals, which he lost, but he had a very high ratio of sets played (4,75 sets), which means he was very close of winning them for the most part.
Federer has 1 slam in his favorite surface where he didn't drop a set.

Outside the Dominant Venue

both Federer and DJokovic have been more successful than Nadal, reaching 19 finals But Federer has been more successful than Djokovic winning them, Federer winning 12/19 compared to 9/19 for the Serb. Federer also was more dominant, specially in the finals, needing considerably less sets /(3,58) compared to Novak (4.0) in order to win those finals
Federer also has the advantage of having won a slam without dropping a set in a non dominant slam venue (Australia 2007)

Nadal on the other hand has won 7/15 finals needing on average 4,14 sets to win those slam finals, which puts him behind in terms of slams reached and proportion of them won than federer, however his ratio of conversion is similar to Djokovic (although with less finals won and reached) in that aspect. He had needed slightly more sets to play to win those finals compared to Djokovic and specially to Federer, which shows he was less dominant on those finals.

However In the finals lost in the non dominant venue ,8/15, Nadal came closer to winning them on average, averaging 4,25 finals played per final lost (the closer to 5.0 the better) compared to Djokovic that has lost 10/19 finals averaging 3,8 sets per finals lost (the closer to 5.0 the better) and federer losing 7/19 averaging 4,14 sets per slam final lost (in non favorite venue)

What is interesting is how Federer has a more convincing performance in Slam finals won outside his dominant venue (3,58 sets needed), compared to his dominant venue
(3,87). However he has a higher ratio of conversion of slam finals in favorite venue (66,6%) compared to the non favorite slam venue (63,16%), and also came closer to winning the slam finals in his dominant venue, compared to the non-dominant venue final lost (4,75 sets played vs 4,14)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Nice analysis! It would also be interesting to see ATP points collected per event participated. I guess Federer will have the highest number as he progressed deeper on an average.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
The thing that jumped out to me is despite the claim from Noletards about how dominant he is he has NEVER won a slam without dropping a set. Nadal has done it four times and Fed twice. Likewise Nadal and Fed has only lost one slam final in straight sets. Novak has lost three slam finals in straight sets. Are the Noletards sure he is as dominant as they claim he is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
The thing that jumped out to me is despite the claim from Noletards about how dominant he is he has NEVER won a slam without dropping a set. Nadal has done it four times and Fed twice. Likewise Nadal and Fed has only lost one slam final in straight sets. Novak has lost three slam finals in straight sets. Are the Noletards sure he is as dominant as they claim he is?
Even in his 2 best years, he barely could beat Federer who was past prime and lost to him some times too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
The thing that jumped out to me is despite the claim from Noletards about how dominant he is he has NEVER won a slam without dropping a set. Nadal has done it four times and Fed twice. Likewise Nadal and Fed has only lost one slam final in straight sets. Novak has lost three slam finals in straight sets. Are the Noletards sure he is as dominant as they claim he is?
Noletard here.

You wrongly assume that winning GS without losing a set implies greatness. The truth is much more trivial. The opponents were subpar.
In order to understand who had it easy, and who didn't, you have to ask yourself these questions:
1. How many slams did Roger win without facing Novak or Rafa?
2. How many slams did Rafa win without facing Novak or Roger?
3. How many slams did Novak win without facing Roger or Rafa?

The trick in winning a GS without losing a set was in doing it against Gonzalez, who won exactly zero GS, or when Novak was injured, as he was in 2017.

Novak joined the club when Roger already had twelve GS and Rafa already had nine GS. And Novak had to earn his GS hard way, over Rafa and Roger. As a matter of fact, first ten Novak's GS wins: three against Roger, three agains Rafa, three against Murray and one against Tsonga. Go look up the list of Roger's first ten slams and you will find the greats of Phillipousis, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, aging Agassi and Sampras at the end of his carrier. No, Roger was not that great. He was the only good one, slightly better than the rest. If Roger had Novak and Rafa from the beginning, his GS count would be a single digit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
Noletard here.


2. How many slams did Rafa win without facing Novak or Roger?
Rafa beat Roger won the RG 2008 final with just the lost of 4 games and Novak in the RG 2020 final with just the lost of 7 games so there goes that argument. But it's a silly argument to make anyway. If players A won a slam without playing player B it mean player B wasn't good enough to reach player A in the draw. So there is no reason to assume player B would of done better than the guy that beat him.

For instance Thiem has beaten Novak multiple times in the last few years at the FO only to go on to be wiped out by Nadal. Now some delusional Novak fans in the past have said Novak would of done better against Nadal than Thiem did. No he wouldn't have. If he couldn't beat Thiem what makes anyone think he could of done better against Nadal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
The thing that jumped out to me is despite the claim from Noletards about how dominant he is he has NEVER won a slam without dropping a set. Nadal has done it four times and Fed twice. Likewise Nadal and Fed has only lost one slam final in straight sets. Novak has lost three slam finals in straight sets. Are the Noletards sure he is as dominant as they claim he is?
As far as meaningless stats go, that's right up there. A much better measure of domination would be W/L throughout the year, tournament wins, results against the Top 10 and H2H.

Who actually cares how many sets was lost along the way to a tournament win? The only reason it would ever be used as an argument is to somehow justify one player's greatness over the other. Domination should be about consistency.

Using never having dropped a set in any meaningful way as an argument is peak MTF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Rafa beat Roger won the RG 2008 final with just the lost of 4 games and Novak in the RG 2020 final with just the lost of 7 games so there goes that argument.

If players A won a slam without playing player B it mean player B wasn't good enough to reach player A in the draw
That was exactly my point. Rafa is one true champion and legitimate GOAT contender.

Rafa was able to beat his fellow GOAT contenders soundly on clay. Roger was not able to do that to any serious player. But, let's be real, clay is a different beast and Rafa dedicated himself to beat everyone on clay after he realized that he cannot beat Novak on hard court. Since US Open 2013, which was seven years ago, Novak beat Rafa nine times in a row on hard courts and Rafa was not able to take a single set from Novak. That's because Novak is the second legitimate GOAT contender. Not Roger who did not have a decent opponent 2004-2007 when he "dominated". Take out Novak and Rafa and Roger would dominate again.

And what if player B is just a teenager who just turned pro while player A "dominates" GS? How do you imagine it is fair to say "If players A won a slam without playing player B it mean player B wasn't good enough to reach player A in the draw"? Give player B five-six years and then look what their score is. Then you will find that player A did not beat player B on a GS since 2012. (A=Roger, B=Novak)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,060 Posts
The thing that jumped out to me is despite the claim from Noletards about how dominant he is he has NEVER won a slam without dropping a set. Nadal has done it four times and Fed twice. Likewise Nadal and Fed has only lost one slam final in straight sets. Novak has lost three slam finals in straight sets. Are the Noletards sure he is as dominant as they claim he is?
A Win IS a Win, WHATEVER the score. How about calculating the % of slams won with the number of slams played?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,853 Posts
These type of threads should started by non big 3 fan. So it would've unbiased and neutral.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top