Federer was 20-1 at Masters 1000s in 2017, but he was absent at more than half of the Masters events in that season. Highly selective scheduling has done wonders to favourably skew the overall percentage at these tournaments to his advantage - kudos to him.
TBH, more than "goat points", I would prefer a graph, for example, number of matches won, by age, by season, as you suggested for GS, YEC and global titles etc.
But it must take a lot of work, taking over the entire Open era.
Federer was 20-1 at Masters 1000s in 2017, but he was absent at more than half of the Masters events in that season. Highly selective scheduling has done wonders to favourably skew the overall percentage at these tournaments to his advantage - kudos to him.
Well, it was a very tight schedule for a player in his 36th years old, although he doesn't escape the injury in Canada, which could happen at any time during this season.
It will be interesting to see Nadal at the same age next year, and for Djokovic in 2 years.
Well, it was a very tight schedule for a player in his 36th years old, although he doesn't escape the injury in Canada, which could happen at any time during this season.
It will be interesting to see Nadal at the same age next year, and for Djokovic in 2 years.
Why would they need to enter geriatric age to prove something? Both Nadal and Djokovic have already won more big titles than Federer. Since when is being better in some stat which measures average ratio more important than stat about actual titles at those same tournaments?
Why would they need to enter geriatric age to prove something? Both Nadal and Djokovic have already won more big titles than Federer. Since when is being better in some stat which measures average ratio more important than stat about actual titles at those same tournaments?
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!