Mens Tennis Forums banner

61 - 65 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
Nadal has beaten a US Open champion (future or past) in each of his US Open wins. He hasn't had any easy draws and it's not going to become true just because you guys keep repeating it.

This year for example he had to beat Cilic (US Open champion who always plays great there since 2014), Schwartzman (great baseliner who always gives him trouble, was a set and a break against Rafa at RG in 2017), Berretini (who was nearly unbreakable with his serve/forehand combination) and a great-playing Medvedev who was making every single final and who showed he had the belief to come back from 2-0 against Rafa in a slam final). This is a standard draw and can only look 'easy' in comparison with his draws in the past, in most of which he had to beat an all-time great. How can anyone claim with a straight face that this draw was easier than the joke draws when Federer was beating nobodies like Baghdatis for example? (And keep in mind that this happened during Federer's prime, allowing him to take advantage even better of his easy competition; having a comparatively easier draw doesn't translate into slam success as readily when you're older.)

In fact, overall throughout his career, Nadal has clearly faced the strongest competition of the three at the slams, having to beat Djokovic and/or Federer in 13 of his slam wins, the vast majority of them near their peak. Both Federer and Djokovic went through periods during their prime with no serious competition (like Federer beating nobodies like Baghdatis and Philippsoussis, Djokovic with severely declined Fedal after 2014).
I'm not saying that Nadal had an easy path to his USO wins. The adjusted slam win calculation does. The very same calculation Nadal fans have used to discredit Federer and his supposed weak era. Granted, you might not have been one of them but if you are then your defense of Nadal's USO2019 win is just hilarious.

No one believes so. No one.

Rafa has beaten the next best in-form player of the North American hardcourt season in the USO'19 final + a former USO champion enroute to the title.

Medvedev's 6 consecutive results during that short period were:
Washington (F) + Rogers Cup (F) + Cincinnati (W) + USO (F) + St. Petersburg (W) + Shanghai (W). Medvedev has reached the finals of all those 6 events winning 3 of them and won the two hardcourt Masters 1000 events (Cincinnati & Shanghai) before and after the USO final loss.
It's fine if you don't believe this. As long as you also don't use the adjusted slam count to claim that Nadal has won harder slams than Federer during his career. Can't do one without the other.

I think the elo method has valid points (strong/weak opponents).
Nadal's USO2017 was relatively easy. Even Toni admitted it. Although Delpotro was definitely stronger than his ranking at that point.
USO2019? Public opinion will largely depends on Medvedev's trajectory.
Now it's your turn to share opinion about this calculation.
I'll share my opinion when you actually answer my question.

One thing I will say is that I find the adjusted slam calculation quite interesting. According to that Federer actually won more difficult slams on average than both Sampras and Agassi. On average each of Federer's slams were worth 0.9725 slams. For Sampras it's 0.9457 and for Agassi it's 0.92875. That's quite funny considering that the weak era theory as far as I know originated from Sampras fans trying to discredit Federer when he was getting closer to his records.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,807 Posts
No
Im saying the ATP tour was much easier when Fed won his USO compare to the times when Novak and Rafa won their USO titles.
There is a reason why Federer haven't won USO from 2008
And its because he faced much higher completion than in his weak era
Yeah Yeah and now Fedtards will said "Federer faced Roddick and Aggassi!"
Novak,Rafa and Delpo in the USO will eat all of those alive

Simple fact , Novak and Rafa > Federer and the USO
They just play better than Federer in this surface
Federer not winning USO since 2008 is as relevant as Nadal not winning it before 2010. They won it when they did. What's the "tougher" competition he had after that? I mean, you could use that lame argument at the AO as he lost to Nadal several times after 2008 but not the case at the USO. And Federer beat Djokovic at the USO more times than Nadal did (Djokovic being the other all-time great of the generation). Federer in 2004 went through Agassi, Henman and Hewitt, in 2005 Nalbandian, Hewitt and Agassi, in 2006 Davydenko and Roddick, in 2007 Roddick, Davydenko and Djokovic, in 2008 Djokovic and Murray. And then when he didn't win the event also had some big wins like Soderling and Djokovic in 2009, Soderling in 2010, Tsonga in 2011, Wawrinka in 2015, etc. He certainly didn't have easy draws at the USO, in fact they might have been his hardest since he didn't have an easy road there like say Wimbledon 2006.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
I'll share my opinion when you actually answer my question.

One thing I will say is that I find the adjusted slam calculation quite interesting. According to that Federer actually won more difficult slams on average than both Sampras and Agassi. On average each of Federer's slams were worth 0.9725 slams. For Sampras it's 0.9457 and for Agassi it's 0.92875. That's quite funny considering that the weak era theory as far as I know originated from Sampras fans trying to discredit Federer when he was getting closer to his records.
People realize Fed's weak era long before the elo calculation was applied in tennis. It is common sense and general consensus (except Fedfans).

Regarding Sampras, Sampras fans' main complain is not weak era, but the slowdown of Wimbledon (maybe weak grass era so to speak). Elo calculation cannot address surface change, so comparing Sampras's slam difficulty to Federer's is not easy. Generally speaking, comparing two players not(barely) overlapping is hard. However, comparing Fed and Nadal and Djoker based on elo calculation makes much more sense since they play on same surfaces and played each other many times. H2h combined with elo calculation give a much clearer picture of the competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
People realize Fed's weak era long before the elo calculation was applied in tennis. It is common sense and general consensus (except Fedfans).

Regarding Sampras, Sampras fans' main complain is not weak era, but the slowdown of Wimbledon (maybe weak grass era so to speak). Elo calculation cannot address surface change, so comparing Sampras's slam difficulty to Federer's is not easy. Generally speaking, comparing two players not(barely) overlapping is hard. However, comparing Fed and Nadal and Djoker based on elo calculation makes much more sense since they play on same surfaces and played each other many times. H2h combined with elo calculation give a much clearer picture of the competition.
It's really not common sense and general consensus. You writing this just show that you reside in a Nadal fan echo chamber.

And why is competition weaker just because grass became slower? Does this mean RG as the slowest slam has the weakest competition? Why should ELO address this? ELO is about strength compared to other players. So Sampras had weaker competition compared to himself than Federer did.

It's just so funny that every time the adjusted slam calculation show something that you don't like you fight against it instead of just accepting it. There's always the exception for when it doesn't suit your narrative. As a general rule of thumb, when you have to come up with such exceptions then you know you are biased.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
It's really not common sense and general consensus. You writing this just show that you reside in a Nadal fan echo chamber.

And why is competition weaker just because grass became slower? Does this mean RG as the slowest slam has the weakest competition? Why should ELO address this? ELO is about strength compared to other players. So Sampras had weaker competition compared to himself than Federer did.

It's just so funny that every time the adjusted slam calculation show something that you don't like you fight against it instead of just accepting it. There's always the exception for when it doesn't suit your narrative. As a general rule of thumb, when you have to come up with such exceptions then you know you are biased.
Criticizing others is always easier.
So just get it straight, what's your opinion about elo calculation applied in tennis.
 
61 - 65 of 65 Posts
Top