Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I will divide periods in 5 years spans since the first slam they won.


Federer.

1- Wimbledon 2003 - RG 2008 : 12 slams, 16 finals (21 years 11 months- 26 years 10 months)
2- Wimbledon 2008 - RG 2013 : 5 slams, 8 finals (26 years 11 months - 31 years 10 months)
3- Wimbledon 2013 - RG 2018/Retirement: 0 slams, 1 final (31 years 11 months - retirement)

Nadal.

1- Rg 2005 - AO 2010 : 6 slams, 8 finals ( 19 years - 23 years 7 months)
2- RG 2010 - AO 2015 : 8 slams, 12 finals ( 2 slams left to play) (24 years-28 years 7 months)
3- RG 2015 - AO 2020/retirement : to be played... (29 years- 33 years 7 months/retirement)


Djokovic


1- AO 2008 - USO 2012: 5 slams, 9 finals (20 years 8 months-25 years 4 months)
2- AO 2013 - USO 2017: 2 slams, 5 finals (25 years 8 months-30 years 4 months) 7 slams played, 13 left.
3- AO 2018 - USO 2022 : Let's see if he plays after 30, still too far away..


Federer advantages..

HE clearly has no other advantage than his natural grass court game, and the possible early upset of the other big 4 in the earlier rounds of wimbledons, I see wimbledon, 2015-16 as his last chances to get an extra gs.

Federer disadvantages...

His career evolution winning slams indicates he was so much more succesful in the first half of his career than in the second period, he won 70% of slams in his first 5 year span, since he got the first slam in 2003.

The same way the third period where he only played 5 slams out of a total of 20, which are highly unlikely since at very best he retires after the fall of 2016 seasson (or maybe right after olympics or possibly wimbledon), where he would only have 8-9 slams more to play in his career..

Nadal advantages..

unlike federer he has been more succesful on the second 5 years span of his slam winning career, where he already won 2 extra gs and achieved more finals, despite having 2 titles more to dispute.

HE has 2 hc titles more to play to complete the second period, and HC has been by far his second best surface, where he has been the more succesful played in the last 1-2 years (when it comes to slams)

He has a slam where he almost never lose, RG. It will always be an extra credit for him when compared to any other player.

Since the odds are on his favour we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Disadvantages:


HE has turned less competitive on grass slam, hence he has realistic chances at 3/4 slams unless he proves himself the opossite.

You never know with his health, but at the moment he seems better than late 2013-early 2013.


Djokovic

Advantages:

The youngest of the three, seems to find confidence and consistence more often than not.

He is a safe card for later stages, seems almost never to be prone for early upsets,unless its a wawrinka on fire.

Adapts very well to plexicushion Australian open surface.

Disadvantages.

He hasnt been able to convert all those consistence in deep runs to GS titles, he has problems in the finals, and seem to be more of a player who plays consistently well, rather than one who peaks in the finals.

He is commiting and could get some focus away from tennis.

He hasnt proven to be able to win multiple slams, and has been so far highly dependant on a 12 months span where he achieved the bulk of his titles (4/7)

Age is not on his favour... he is considerably older than fed and rafa at his 7 slam title.


Advantages for the three vs the field..


They remain being more mentally strong than the rest.

Disadvantages:

the new players with potential are showing up already, although they seem to be not quite there mentally wise, the potential is undeniable, and as long as one of them exploits, the rest will follow... unchained reaction..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
821 Posts
I will divide periods in 5 years spans since the first slam they won.


Federer.

1- Wimbledon 2003 - RG 2008 : 12 slams, 16 finals (21 years 11 months- 26 years 10 months)
2- Wimbledon 2008 - RG 2013 : 5 slams, 8 finals (26 years 11 months - 31 years 10 months)
3- Wimbledon 2013 - RG 2018/Retirement: 0 slams, 1 final (31 years 11 months - retirement)

Nadal.

1- Rg 2005 - AO 2010 : 6 slams, 8 finals ( 19 years - 23 years 7 months)
2- RG 2010 - AO 2015 : 8 slams, 12 finals ( 2 slams left to play) (24 years-28 years 7 months)
3- RG 2015 - AO 2020/retirement : to be played... (29 years- 33 years 7 months/retirement)


Djokovic

1- AO 2008 - USO 2012: 5 slams, 9 finals (20 years 8 months-25 years 4 months)
2- AO 2013 - USO 2017: 2 slams, 5 finals (25 years 8 months-30 years 4 months) 7 slams played, 13 left.
3- AO 2018 - USO 2022 : Let's see if he plays after 30, still too far away..


Federer advantages..

HE clearly has no other advantage than his natural grass court game, and the possible early upset of the other big 4 in the earlier rounds of wimbledons, I see wimbledon, 2015-16 as his last chances to get an extra gs.

Federer disadvantages...

His career evolution winning slams indicates he was so much more succesful in the first half of his career than in the second period, he won 70% of slams in his first 5 year span, since he got the first slam in 2003.

The same way the third period where he only played 5 slams out of a total of 20, which are highly unlikely since at very best he retires after the fall of 2016 seasson (or maybe right after olympics or possibly wimbledon), where he would only have 8-9 slams more to play in his career..

Nadal advantages..

unlike federer he has been more succesful on the second 5 years span of his slam winning career, where he already won 2 extra gs and achieved more finals, despite having 2 titles more to dispute.

HE has 2 hc titles more to play to complete the second period, and HC has been by far his second best surface, where he has been the more succesful played in the last 1-2 years (when it comes to slams)

He has a slam where he almost never lose, RG. It will always be an extra credit for him when compared to any other player.

Since the odds are on his favour we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Disadvantages:

HE has turned less competitive on grass slam, hence he has realistic chances at 3/4 slams unless he proves himself the opossite.

You never know with his health, but at the moment he seems better than late 2013-early 2013.


Djokovic

Advantages:

The youngest of the three, seems to find confidence and consistence more often than not.

He is a safe card for later stages, seems almost never to be prone for early upsets,unless its a wawrinka on fire.

Adapts very well to plexicushion Australian open surface.

Disadvantages.

He hasnt been able to convert all those consistence in deep runs to GS titles, he has problems in the finals, and seem to be more of a player who plays consistently well, rather than one who peaks in the finals.

He is commiting and could get some focus away from tennis.

He hasnt proven to be able to win multiple slams, and has been so far highly dependant on a 12 months span where he achieved the bulk of his titles (4/7)

Age is not on his favour... he is considerably older than fed and rafa at his 7 slam title.


Advantages for the three vs the field..

They remain being more mentally strong than the rest.

Disadvantages:

the new players with potential are showing up already, although they seem to be not quite there mentally wise, the potential is undeniable, and as long as one of them exploits, the rest will follow... unchained reaction..
This is an excellent post.

Can you make the headings bold.

The main advantage of federer was that period, where the previous generation superstars were retiring and done.
Had Nadal been there in that period...I believe we wouldn't even be talking about these many number of slams and Pete Sampram would have been the highest Slam winner.
 

·
The Last Mohican
Joined
·
24,521 Posts
Another disadvantage for Dull is that he played in one of the weakest clay eras after 2005. How many players list clay as their best surface in the top 100?

His biggest competitiors:

Federer - extreme match-up disadvantage
Djokovic - won most on hardcourts
Ferrer - admitted he gave up in 2014 at 1-1 in sets
Soderling - :lol:
Clayray - :D

He was lucky that Coria had his fiasco at RG, or else he would have stolen some RGs from Dull.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Another disadvantage for Dull is that he played in one of the weakest clay eras after 2005. How many players list clay as their best surface in the top 100?

His biggest competitiors:

Federer - extreme match-up disadvantage
Djokovic - won most on hardcourts
Ferrer - admitted he gave up in 2014 at 1-1 in sets
Soderling - :lol:
Clayray - :D

He was lucky that Coria had his fiasco at RG, or else he would have stolen some RGs from Dull.

Im sorry, but clay is the same surface as it was several years ago, and you still have quite a lot of typical clay type of players.

GRass has changed, and so the competition, you have no longer grass court specialist, because serve and volley died in the begin of 2000's

You cannot deny that rafa would have denied other players the RG in any era. On the other hand you dont know about fed, because grass changed a lot, and there are far less dangerous players, because nowadays you dont need serve and volley to win the wimbledon.

Its clear you dont like the guy, but please try to be at least a little more objetive, specially when talking to the posters like me who have seen tennis for quite a few more years than you probably have...

I watch tennis since 1988, and I have no doubts the top tier players would be succesful in other eras regardless of surface changes. The pro tour is quite competitive and a champion mind can make more of an advantage that having a slight better tennis shot.
 

·
Bunned!
Joined
·
3,050 Posts
Im sorry, but clay is the same surface as it was several years ago, and you still have quite a lot of typical clay type of players.

GRass has changed, and so the competition, you have no longer grass court specialist, because serve and volley died in the begin of 2000's

You cannot deny that rafa would have denied other players the RG in any era. On the other hand you dont know about fed, because grass changed a lot, and there are far less dangerous players, because nowadays you dont need serve and volley to win the wimbledon.

Its clear you dont like the guy, but please try to be at least a little more objetive, specially when talking to the posters like me who have seen tennis for quite a few more years than you probably have...

I watch tennis since 1988, and I have no doubts the top tier players would be succesful in other eras regardless of surface changes. The pro tour is quite competitive and a champion mind can make more of an advantage that having a slight better tennis shot.
Your first mistake was thinking that Slade is capable of being logical/objective. Nadal could cure cancer and Slade would talk about how cancer hasn't really been a threat since before Nadal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
Your first mistake was thinking that Slade is capable of being logical/objective. Nadal could cure cancer and Slade would talk about how cancer hasn't really been a threat since before Nadal.
Spot on.

Fedalkovic said:
Federer disadvantages...

His career evolution winning slams indicates he was so much more succesful in the first half of his career than in the second period, he won 70% of slams in his first 5 year span, since he got the first slam in 2003.
Very interesting stat.
 

·
The Last Mohican
Joined
·
24,521 Posts
Im sorry, but clay is the same surface as it was several years ago, and you still have quite a lot of typical clay type of players.

GRass has changed, and so the competition, you have no longer grass court specialist, because serve and volley died in the begin of 2000's
Fair enough that some players in the top 200 are best on clay, but how many players in the top 20 post-2005 have been clay specialists? Probably only a handful - all to Dull's liking.

You cannot deny that rafa would have denied other players the RG in any era. On the other hand you dont know about fed, because grass changed a lot, and there are far less dangerous players, because nowadays you dont need serve and volley to win the wimbledon.
Of course Dull would have succeeded on clay in any other era, but I don't think he would have won as many RG titles in stronger clay eras. In 2011, Novak should have won. Hell, even in 2012 Novak should have won if the match wasn't suspended. In 2013, Novak should have won but he made a boneheaded move and touched the net - which in turn cost him the match. In 2014, Novak should have won but he had an illness since the Gulbis match in the SF. Nadal in 2014 also started cramping up in the 4th, so even more likely that Novak would have won if he didn't get so unlucky with illness.

Its clear you dont like the guy, but please try to be at least a little more objetive, specially when talking to the posters like me who have seen tennis for quite a few more years than you probably have...

I watch tennis since 1988, and I have no doubts the top tier players would be succesful in other eras regardless of surface changes. The pro tour is quite competitive and a champion mind can make more of an advantage that having a slight better tennis shot.
I think I am being objective. If you look back in history, he won FOUR RG titles with Federer as the final opponent. Dull is simply an extremely bad match-up for Federer in that he has a significant match-up advantage. So I feel like Dull got lucky that a guy with match-up issues defeated other players who could have well beaten Dull in an RG final.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,116 Posts
"His career evolution winning slams indicates he was so much more succesful in the first half of his career than in the second period, he won 70% of slams in his first 5 year span, since he got the first slam in 2003."


Federer was also 29-31 in that second period (well past the average prime age in tennis) and Nadal was 24-28.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
I think I am being objective. If you look back in history, he won FOUR RG titles with Federer as the final opponent. Dull is simply an extremely bad match-up for Federer in that he has a significant match-up advantage. So I feel like Dull got lucky that a guy with match-up issues defeated other players who could have well beaten Dull in an RG final.
He also won FOUR RG's against players not named Federer. So much for history and you're feeling is nothing more than hatred.
 

·
The Last Mohican
Joined
·
24,521 Posts
He also won FOUR RG's against players not named Federer. So much for history and you're feeling is nothing more than hatred.
1. Puerta (2005) - Lucky that Puerta beat Davydenko
2. Soderling (2010) - Dull played well. He did deserve this one although Soderling would be much tougher to play against in those heavy cloudy conditions.
3. Djokovic (2012) - Lucky that the match was suspended.
4. Ferrer (2013) - Ferrer doesn't have the mentality to beat Dull in RG. Even as a Ferrer fan I admit it. Hell, David said himself that he gave up.
5. Djokovic (2014) - Lucky that Djokovic was ill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
1. Puerta (2005) - Lucky that Puerta beat Davydenko
2. Soderling (2010) - Dull played well. He did deserve this one although Soderling would be much tougher to play against in those heavy cloudy conditions.
3. Djokovic (2012) - Lucky that the match was suspended.
4. Ferrer (2013) - Ferrer doesn't have the mentality to beat Dull in RG. Even as a Ferrer fan I admit it. Hell, David said himself that he gave up.
5. Djokovic (2014) - Lucky that Djokovic was ill.
1.Nadal first slam final. FYI He's never lost to Davydanko on clay, so you're point is void.
2. Oh he earned this one? Could it be because this same Sod beat your new favorite Rogie? Yes, yes I think we've a winner.
3. Up 2 sets to 1 when play was suspended. Won with ease the following day.
4. Ferrer has never beaten Nadal on clay...oh wait. Anyway, this one was pretty much a given.
5. Haha ill was he? Sure thing. Another 4 set win, but somehow in Nadal hater world Crocodilovic was the sure winner if, if, if....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,116 Posts
Where did the nickname "Crocodilovic" come from?
 

·
The Last Mohican
Joined
·
24,521 Posts
1.Nadal first slam final. FYI He's never lost to Davydanko on clay, so you're point is void.
2. Oh he earned this one? Could it be because this same Sod beat your new favorite Rogie? Yes, yes I think we've a winner.
3. Up 2 sets to 1 when play was suspended. Won with ease the following day.
4. Ferrer has never beaten Nadal on clay...oh wait. Anyway, this one was pretty much a given.
5. Haha ill was he? Sure thing. Another 4 set win, but somehow in Nadal hater world Crocodilovic was the sure winner if, if, if....
I don't want to derail the thread so this is my last post here:

1. Dull probably would have won either way, but for sure Davydenko would put up a great fight if only he put away Puerta in four sets. There is a thing called match-ups and Davydenko matches up quite well against Dull considering how early he takes his strokes, and he just plays so quick to take time away from Dull. Of course clay reduces this match-up advantage.

2. Soderling is a worthy adversary, so yes he deserved it. Just saying he got lucky because of the conditions lining up perfectly (as usual).

3. Djokovic had ALL the momentum at the point. Also you must know how bad of a slow starter Novak is. He easily would have gone 2-2 against Dull should the match have continued.

4. It was a given because Djokovic touched the net in the SF. That net touch cost Novak RG, Montreal, USO, and the AO.

5. He puked on court. That should be OBVIOUS at to his ailing condition that day.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Fair enough that some players in the top 200 are best on clay, but how many players in the top 20 post-2005 have been clay specialists? Probably only a handful - all to Dull's liking.



Of course Dull would have succeeded on clay in any other era, but I don't think he would have won as many RG titles in stronger clay eras. In 2011, Novak should have won. Hell, even in 2012 Novak should have won if the match wasn't suspended. In 2013, Novak should have won but he made a boneheaded move and touched the net - which in turn cost him the match. In 2014, Novak should have won but he had an illness since the Gulbis match in the SF. Nadal in 2014 also started cramping up in the 4th, so even more likely that Novak would have won if he didn't get so unlucky with illness.



I think I am being objective. If you look back in history, he won FOUR RG titles with Federer as the final opponent. Dull is simply an extremely bad match-up for Federer in that he has a significant match-up advantage. So I feel like Dull got lucky that a guy with match-up issues defeated other players who could have well beaten Dull in an RG final.
Djokovic shouldnt have won in 2011 because he failed making the final and couldnt beat a guy who was almost turning 30 in his so holy peak year, which makes me think Nole wouldnt be enough to stop peak federer. If anything I thank rafa for making tennis more interesting in one of the most unwatchable periouds of tennis, otherwise federer would have 25 slams and there would have been no competence until 2011... IF Rafa would not have been a factor the federer era would have extended from 2004-2010.. instead of 2004-2007... and he would have never got mentally broken and probably shared 2011 with nole and snatched a couple more slams during 2012-2014...

I like sports when there is some counterpart and not when a single player wins everything he enters, maybe other people have different definition of what sport should be...And could you stop calling the guy dull and name him for his real name, Last time I checked the atp and typed dull, and found no entries, maybe you are watching at some different sport at the moment.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I don't want to derail the thread so this is my last post here:

1. Dull probably would have won either way, but for sure Davydenko would put up a great fight if only he put away Puerta in four sets. There is a thing called match-ups and Davydenko matches up quite well against Dull considering how early he takes his strokes, and he just plays so quick to take time away from Dull. Of course clay reduces this match-up advantage.

2. Soderling is a worthy adversary, so yes he deserved it. Just saying he got lucky because of the conditions lining up perfectly (as usual).

3. Djokovic had ALL the momentum at the point. Also you must know how bad of a slow starter Novak is. He easily would have gone 2-2 against Dull should the match have continued.

4. It was a given because Djokovic touched the net in the SF. That net touch cost Novak RG, Montreal, USO, and the AO.

5. He puked on court. That should be OBVIOUS at to his ailing condition that day.
How many times did Davydenko beat nadal on grand slams? The matchup can have some pattern but doesnt affect the player's career. The matchup between big 4 do considerably affect their whole success, but not again the less succesful players..

There is no luck in sports, tennis, football or whatever you practice.. there are mentally strong and mentally unstable people, and those are skills, not only technique or gameplan are skills, but also the way you deal with important points. If djokovic cannot deal with important games is because he is less skilled mentally wise than rafa. The funny thing is that you do not mention when guys like dimitrov or wawrinka collapse mentally vs djokovic, but only when he isnt favored...

Puking in court is fitness condition, if you dont have enough fitness conditions is because you are lesser in that aspect than your opponent, the same as if someone has stronger volley, or if someone runs faster, there are no excuses, everybody should be as healthy and fit as possible in sports.

For the last, I dont completly agree with you, Djokovic have got completly unplayed at times by both Nadal and Murray, specially the former, who when delivers his forehead can be more aggressive than Djokovic, and with aggressive game I'm talking about the hability to transform defense to attack, not pushing tennis.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
"His career evolution winning slams indicates he was so much more succesful in the first half of his career than in the second period, he won 70% of slams in his first 5 year span, since he got the first slam in 2003."


Federer was also 29-31 in that second period (well past the average prime age in tennis) and Nadal was 24-28.
Im not saying federer wasnt able to win slams, It just indicative of the evolution of his slam wins, or courve where he stacked most of his slams, the amount is still quite impressive but give us the tendency of going on decrease when compared to his former years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,982 Posts
He was lucky that Coria had his fiasco at RG, or else he would have stolen some RGs from Dull.
:superlol:

Coria lost to Gaudio of all the people....

Of course Dull would have succeeded on clay in any other era, but I don't think he would have won as many RG titles in stronger clay eras. In 2011, Novak should have won. Hell, even in 2012 Novak should have won if the match wasn't suspended. In 2013, Novak should have won but he made a boneheaded move and touched the net - which in turn cost him the match. In 2014, Novak should have won but he had an illness since the Gulbis match in the SF. Nadal in 2014 also started cramping up in the 4th, so even more likely that Novak would have won if he didn't get so unlucky with illness.

I think I am being objective. If you look back in history, he won FOUR RG titles with Federer as the final opponent. Dull is simply an extremely bad match-up for Federer in that he has a significant match-up advantage. So I feel like Dull got lucky that a guy with match-up issues defeated other players who could have well beaten Dull in an RG final.
Of course Novak should have won every match with Nadal. Nothing new from you.

And Match-up advantage? Of course Nadal has it, but that match-up wasn't a birthday gift for him, he had to work for it. For you, it's just a cliche without deeper understanding, but realize he should be given some respect for that.

And weak clay opposition? Federer or Djokovic would have been as successful as Lendl or Wilander if there wasn't Nadal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,116 Posts
Im not saying federer wasnt able to win slams, It just indicative of the evolution of his slam wins, or courve where he stacked most of his slams, the amount is still quite impressive but give us the tendency of going on decrease when compared to his former years.
Nadal won his first Slam at 19, Federer at 21 (nearly 22). So yes, his second 5 year period fro 26-31 wouldn't be as successful as Nadal's which was 24-28. Federer's Slam performance was great until he was about 28 and a half (AO 2010), so in those last 2+ years he wasn't at his best Slam-wise. But certainly Rafa has been at his best Slam-wise (mostly) from the French Open 2010 to the current day.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top