Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Crazy stuff. If you combinate them all togehter he has no positive h2h at any slams.

Australien Open: 2:6 (1:3 against Rafa, 1:3 against Nole)
Roland Garros: 1:7 (0:6 against Rafa, 1:1 against Nole)
Wimbledon: 3:3 (2:1 against Rafa, 1:2 against Nole)
US Open: 3:3 (no match against Rafa, 3:3 against Nole)

Even if you compare just against one player he has just a positive H2H against Rafa at Wimbledon (2:1).
 

·
Ace Loveforty
Joined
·
83,393 Posts
guy just reached a GS SF at almost 38 yo after not playing on clay in 3 years yet people look only for those stats that can belittle him
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
guy just reached a GS SF at almost 38 yo after not playing on clay in 3 years yet people look only for those stats that can belittle him
It's not about the match today. The outcome was so obvious today. But it's still a very impressive stats. In general. Roger was already 2:8 against Rafa before he even turned 30 years old.

And against Nole he didn't play a slam in the last 3 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,175 Posts
I don't think Federer cares about those statistics and numbers anymore. Otherwise, he would not be playing tennis today and would have retired already. Especially, at this age, he is more susceptible to losses to Rafa and Djokovic to make those statistics look even weaker, if he continues to play against them.

In a way, Federer's stubbornness to continue to play tennis gave him 3 additional slams (AO'17, Wimbledon'17, and AO'18), after a gap of 4 and a half years, since he did not win any slams between Wimbledon'12 and AO'17, making it more difficult to Rafa and Djokovic to equal or surpass his slam count. He could have retired early like Sampras did, but then he would only have had, maybe 17 slams, which number could be equaled or surpassed relatively easily by both Rafa and Djokovic in a similar way he equaled and surpassed Sampras's 14 slams.

By putting himself out there, he is giving himself a chance to still win titles, at the same time making millions of dollars in money. Who would throw that chance away, since he won't be playing tennis forever? Have fun on the tennis court and make money, while it lasts.

Not to forget, at 37, he is still No.3 ranked player in the world and one of the three most consistent players on the tour. The bigger issue on the ATP tour today is that the young brigade is not stepping up yet. The only bright spot is Thiem, who just made it to the fourth SF in a row at RG; at least, he is consistent, in the context of RG. There's no youngster, who is consistent at grand slams, in sight. At this time, even at 37 or 38, the tour needs Federer to go on, as long as he can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
guy just reached a GS SF at almost 38 yo after not playing on clay in 3 years yet people look only for those stats that can belittle him
It isn’t belittling either. These are hard facts. Federer is a great player without a doubt, but this shows he isn’t the greatest ever. How can he be the greatest ever when his 2 main rivals in the same generation won more times against him in the slams and also overall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,825 Posts
I don't think Federer cares about those statistics and numbers anymore. Otherwise, he would not be playing tennis today and would have retired already. Especially, at this age, he is more susceptible to losses to Rafa and Djokovic to make those statistics look even weaker, if he continues to play against them.

In a way, Federer's stubbornness gave him 3 additional slams (AO'17, Wimbleodn'17, and AO'17), after a gap of 4 and a half years, since he did not win any slams between Wimbledon'12 and AO'17, making it more difficult to Rafa and Djokovic to equal or surpass his slam count. He could have retired early like Sampras did, but then he would only have had, maybe 17 slams, which number could be equaled or surpassed relatively easily by both Rafa and Djokovic in a similar way he equaled and surpassed Sampras's 14 slams.

By putting himself out there, he is giving himself a chance to still win titles, at the same time making millions of dollars in money. Who would throw that chance away, since he won't be playing tennis forever? Have fun on the tennis court and make money, while it lasts.

Not to forget, at 37, he is still No.3 ranked player in the world and one of the three most consistent players on the tour. The bigger issue on the ATP tour today is that the young brigade is not stepping up yet. The only bright spot is Thiem, who just made it to the fourth SF in a row at RG; at least, he is consistent, in the context of RG. There's no youngster, who is consistent at grand slams, in sight. At this time, even at 37 or 38, the tour needs Federer to go on, as long as he can.
I know it's the today's Rafa win drunkness talking here, but good on you for the words, mate. I will cheer for Rafa on Sunday if it's Djokovic on the other side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,531 Posts
It isn’t belittling either. These are hard facts. Federer is a great player without a doubt, but this shows he isn’t the greatest ever. How can he be the greatest ever when his 2 main rivals in the same generation won more times against him in the slams and also overall.
Greatness is determined by how one performs against the field, not a select few. The statistics clearly show that against the field Federer is very much the most successful (at the moment). Also key to remember that Nadal and Djokovic are part of the generation that follows him, so he automatically works at an age disadvantage.

Federer has positive H2H's against his adversaries of his own generation (Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt etc). Interestingly, this "argument", if you can call it that, is only ever used against Federer. I see no Djokovic fans disputing the brilliance of Djokovic because he was Roddick's toy :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,473 Posts
ffs, is he really 1-2 against nole in wimby??
can't even fathom how bad this must suck for him or his tards. :spit: :happy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
Greatness is determined by how one performs against the field, not a select few. The statistics clearly show that against the field Federer is very much the most successful (at the moment). Also key to remember that Nadal and Djokovic are part of the generation that follows him, so he automatically works at an age disadvantage.

Federer has positive H2H's against his adversaries of his own generation (Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt etc). Interestingly, this "argument", if you can call it that, is only ever used against Federer. I see no Djokovic fans disputing the brilliance of Djokovic because he was Roddick's toy :shrug:
When did I ever say Federer is not great. In fact I have acknowledged that he is. I am just saying he isn’t the greatest ever. Nor am I making any case for Rafa or Nole for that title!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Greatness is determined by how one performs against the field, not a select few. The statistics clearly show that against the field Federer is very much the most successful (at the moment). Also key to remember that Nadal and Djokovic are part of the generation that follows him, so he automatically works at an age disadvantage.

Federer has positive H2H's against his adversaries of his own generation (Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt etc). Interestingly, this "argument", if you can call it that, is only ever used against Federer. I see no Djokovic fans disputing the brilliance of Djokovic because he was Roddick's toy :shrug:
Of course you play against the field. And Federer is very very good against the field. But you also need to win the big games against you biggest rivals. And obviously it was always an advantage in the slam race that Federer is older than Nadal and Djokovic. Because they would earlier stop him from the domination. To have Roddick, Nalbandian and Hewitt in your prime as your biggest rivals is defnitely a pleasure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,531 Posts
When did I ever say Federer is not great. In fact I have acknowledged that he is. I am just saying he isn’t the greatest ever. Nor am I making any case for Rafa or Nole for that title!
When I say "greatness"; I'm referring to the greatest ever, within these three - as that is very much the topic of the thread/your comments. In my honest opinion, the "GOAT" title won't fully be decided until all three are retired to see how they compare amongst each other. If we are going on success against the field and the stats that go with that I still think it is tough to argue against Fed being the greatest ever.

So who would you say is, if there is any at all?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,531 Posts
Of course you play against the field. And Federer is very very good against the field. But you also need to win the big games against you biggest rivals. And obviously it was always an advantage in the slam race that Federer is older than Nadal and Djokovic. Because they would earlier stop him from the domination. To have Roddick, Nalbandian and Hewitt in your prime as your biggest rivals is defnitely a pleasure.
Very much a chicken and egg argument :shrug:

Part 1: Were Roddick, Nalbandian and Hewitt actually poor (especially given their record against Nadal/Djokovic) or did Federer just make them look weak? I think the latter.

Part 2: Yes, had Nadal and Djokovic been younger Federer would have been challenged earlier but at the same time he would have been more of a threat later on. Would Djokovic really have won Wimby 14', 15' and USO 15 with peak Federer around... unlikely?

Then if you consider that the generation following Federer was Djokovic/Nadal/Murray/Wawrinka and the generation preceding him had both Sampras/Agassi you could say the field was much tougher than a group of players who were followed by Dimitrov, Nishikori and Thiem :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Very much a chicken and egg argument :shrug:

Part 1: Were Roddick, Nalbandian and Hewitt actually poor (especially given their record against Nadal/Djokovic) or did Federer just make them look weak? I think the latter.

Part 2: Yes, had Nadal and Djokovic been younger Federer would have been challenged earlier but at the same time he would have been more of a threat later on. Would Djokovic really have won Wimby 14', 15' and USO 15 with peak Federer around... unlikely?

Then if you consider that the generation following Federer was Djokovic/Nadal/Murray/Wawrinka and the generation preceding him had both Sampras/Agassi you could say the field was much tougher than a group of players who were followed by Dimitrov, Nishikori and Thiem :shrug:
The case with the Big 3 it doesn't really matter who is there. In general they win, especially in Slams. So the biggest advantage for Federer in 2004-2007 was the absence of Nadal (exclude clay) and Djokovic because they were to young.

It doesn't matter if you have an era with Roddick, Hewitt or Wawrinka, Nishikori or what ever. All 3 are in general to good for them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,531 Posts
The case with the Big 3 it doesn't really matter who is there. In general they win, especially in Slams. So the biggest advantage for Federer in 2004-2007 was the absence of Nadal (exclude clay) and Djokovic because they were to young.

It doesn't matter if you have an era with Roddick, Hewitt or Wawrinka, Nishikori or what ever. All 3 are in general to good for them.
The point is still relevant, they may be too good for them as a whole or in general but the size of the gulf matters (as everybody loses sometimes).

Plus, this is the key thing, Federer had the advantage earlier on (2004-07) due to being older but his advanced age gives Djokovic an advantage now - I sincerely doubt the "Nole Slam" would have happened if Federer was five years younger. Federer had the advantage earlier on his career - Djokovic had it later on in his career because of how their timelines panned out. Nadal has been more constant in that he's always been dominant on clay but comparatively second best everywhere else :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,515 Posts
Part 1: Were Roddick, Nalbandian and Hewitt actually poor (especially given their record against Nadal/Djokovic) or did Federer just make them look weak? I think the latter.
I don't remember anyone calling it a "weak era" at the time, but I do remember Federer being called the greatest of all time as early as 2005. I've been following tennis for nearly 50 years and I've never seen a more dominant and brilliant player. Only the young Nadal stopped him winning the French Open and at least one CYGS.

Part 2: Yes, had Nadal and Djokovic been younger Federer would have been challenged earlier but at the same time he would have been more of a threat later on. Would Djokovic really have won Wimby 14', 15' and USO 15 with peak Federer around... unlikely?
It can also be argued that Federer's dominance drove Nadal and Djokovic to become better and more complete players than they might otherwise have been. At the very least, he set the bar very high. As you point out, however, later on, he was at a disadvantage, given the age gap, which largely explains why he failed to win any slams in 2013–2016.

Then if you consider that the generation following Federer was Djokovic/Nadal/Murray/Wawrinka and the generation preceding him had both Sampras/Agassi you could say the field was much tougher than a group of players who were followed by Dimitrov, Nishikori and Thiem :shrug:
Hence Federer's success in 2017–2019 and the continuing dominance of the Big 3 in the absence of younger players ready to take their place.
 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Top