Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 99 Posts

Registered
Joined
4,661 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I haven't posted here in a while, but I saw an earlier version of this table posted here.
As a result of the lockdown, I've been drinking a little bit more than I should, perhaps. :p
So the previous version of the table had a couple of errors. None of those of errors, thankfully, helped my fave, so I hope people will not misinterpret the mistakes.
This is the definitive table, with no errors, showing how the Big 3 were doing on their 33rd. birthday.
Some things cannot be quantified on a table: being the only player to hold all 4 GS titles at the same time on 3 different surfaces, being the only male player to achieve the Golden Masters (winning all masters events), being number 1 and having more ranking points than the #2 and # 3 together, winning 10 elite titles in a single season, beating 31 top-10 players in a single season, etcetera.
At this point in time, I don't think anybody has any doubts as to who is the best player ever to lift a racquet.
But in any case, I wanted to leave here a correct table.
Cheers! May we have live tennis very soon! :)
355360
 

Banned
Joined
5,488 Posts
I鈥檓 pretty sure everyone (including fed fans) has long since acknowledged Nole as the BOAT yolita. Why are you still fighting the good fight? It鈥檚 time to relax and hang up your sword - the war is over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cloren and Yolita

Banned
Joined
3,274 Posts
Thank you for sharing this beautiful table. This is the most appropriate way to compare the Big 3 in terms of their accomplishments, I would say, considering Federer had many more years to add to his totals than the other two. What we also see leaves little to the imagination.

Djokovic, at 33, is a far more accomplished player than Federer and Nadal were by the time they each turned 33. We are also not talking about a tiny lead. Djokovic is number one across the board in almost every pertinent category.

What is striking to me is how many more "Big Titles" Djokovic has over Federer - 56 against 44! Djokovic's competition was also much harder, as the numbers show, making his superiority even more glaring.

Djokovic is without a doubt the GOAT.
 

Banned
Joined
3,274 Posts
I would also like to point out something (in addition to what the table above already exhibits). Djokovic won a whopping 13/17 slams going through one or both of Federer/Nadal, and 16/17 slams going through one or more of Federer/Nadal/Murray.

Federer, OTOH, won just 7/20 slams going through one of Djokovic/Nadal and 8/20 slams going through one or more of Djokovic/Nadal/Murray.

The math says that Djokovic won 94.1% of his slams going through one or more of Federer/Nadal/Murray, while Federer won only a meager 40% of his slams against one or more of Djokovic/Nadal/Murray.
 

Registered
Joined
4,661 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I鈥檓 qpretty sure everyone (including fed fans) has long since acknowledged Nole as the BOAT yolita. Why are you still fighting the good fight? It鈥檚 time to relax and hang up your sword - the war is over.
Believe me, I am relaxed 馃槑, in fact too relaxed, which is why I let some typos creep in the first version of this table that I posted on Twitter. :)
I did this table in response to a similar comparison done by some journos for Nadal's birthday.
It is their job now to big up Nadal, in fact, I believe during this freeze, Nadal has overtaken Laver and is now in second place, after Federer, according to our excellent tennis pundits :love:
I tend to agree with you, that most people have acknowledged Novak's superiority. But that won't stop journos from trying to manufacture an alternative narrative.
I intend to make it a little harder for them. :)
 

Banned
Joined
5,488 Posts
Believe me, I am relaxed 馃槑, in fact too relaxed, which is why I let some typos creep in the first version of this table that I posted on Twitter. :)
I did this table in response to a similar comparison done by some journos for Nadal's birthday.
It is their job now to big up Nadal, in fact, I believe during this freeze, Nadal has overtaken Laver and is now in second place, after Federer, according to our excellent tennis pundits :love:
I tend to agree with you, that most people have acknowledged Novak's superiority. But that won't stop journos from trying to manufacture an alternative narrative.
I intend to make it a little harder for them. :)
I am one of the bigger fed fans around here but I get a lot of flack from the members of the Federesian horde (those are the unreasonable fed fans that can鈥檛 be argued with) about Nole being BOAT and Rafa being GOAT and Rogie being COAT (most consistent of all time).

But honestly, who even cares? I鈥檓 fine being a fan of the third greatest of all time at something. I would love to be the third greatest of all time at anything... it鈥檚 crazy that it drives some people nuts that there are 2 individuals who are better than Rogie at tennis in the history of the universe... he鈥檚 better than all the other billions... isn鈥檛 that enough?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bakano and Yolita

Registered
Joined
3,390 Posts
The difficulty with these tables is that they ignore the level of competition: Nadal with no clay opposition and Djokovic with 2 Generations Useless. So Fed's position as GOAT is even stronger from these tables.
 

Registered
Joined
4,661 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
The difficulty with these tables is that they ignore the level of competition: Nadal with no clay opposition and Djokovic with 2 Generations Useless. So Fed's position as GOAT is even stronger from these tables.
That is a very subjective way of measuring opposition.
I could mention Philpoussis, Gonzo, Baghdatis, Roddick, 11-years-older Agassi as slam final opponents to downgrade Roger's slams.

A better way would be to consider the ranking of the opponents as a measure of the level of competition.
If you see, over their careers, their W/L % goes steadily down if we consider all opponents, top 20, top10, top5. That holds true even if we consider only one surface. So ranking of the opposition is the best measure we have.

The last rows of my table measure that, but I may add the average ranking of the opponents they faced for their big titles. Spolier: Novak would look even better. ;)
 

Registered
Joined
3,924 Posts
There's a lot of useless nonsense in that table.

Ranking on 33rd birthday? That's just a snapshot.

Equally, the Big 3 wins is meaningful only as a comparison between players the same age, as it is always going to skew against the oldest of the players. And Federer is not just older than the other two, but much older.

Taking away the arbitrary 33-years-old cut-off point, Federer has all the big records (slams, weeks at #1, consecutive weeks at #1) while playing the kind of tennis that has thrilled the world.

Djokovic still has time to catch up on the records, but he can't of course erase a career of conservative, defensive tennis.
 

Registered
Joined
318 Posts
I'm Novak's fan and although this table looks nice, it doesn't mean much to me. End of the race is what's important. Mats Wilander at the age of 21 had 4 slams. Federer had none. And who cares about that now? Nobody...
 

Registered
Joined
7,207 Posts
I'm Novak's fan and although this table looks nice, it doesn't mean much to me. End of the race is what's important. Mats Wilander at the age of 21 had 4 slams. Federer had none. And who cares about that now? Nobody...
Chang at 17 had a slam. Many far superior players hadn't even reached a 2nd round or played in one at all.
 

Banned
Joined
3,274 Posts
I'm Novak's fan and although this table looks nice, it doesn't mean much to me. End of the race is what's important. Mats Wilander at the age of 21 had 4 slams. Federer had none. And who cares about that now? Nobody...
That is an apples and oranges comparison. The Big 3 have been around forever. The comparison that you made is comparing two players who were around for a few years only and starting their careers...

Also, the point of the table was to show how the numbers looked like when the Big 3 were all 33. Federer, for example, had 5-6 more years to add to his totals over the other two, which (naturally) gives one a huge edge when talking about accomplishments as a whole. The point is, Djokovic is way ahead of the race at this point in time over Federer and Nadal.
 

Banned
Joined
3,274 Posts
There's a lot of useless nonsense in that table.

Ranking on 33rd birthday? That's just a snapshot.
No. What this shows is that Djokovic, at 33, is still the best at what he does. This could not have been said Federer, who was in the middle of a five-year winless streak at the slams.

Equally, the Big 3 wins is meaningful only as a comparison between players the same age, as it is always going to skew against the oldest of the players. And Federer is not just older than the other two, but much older.
Federer was not old when Nadal was beating him in 2005. Federer was also not old when Djokovic was beating him in late-2007. Also, what this really shows is that the other two (especially Djokovic) beat the Big 3 much more often than Federer did.

Was it Federer's fault that he did not have to play any of the Big 3 when he won 13 slams? No. But it does offer some context when looking at strength of opposition.

Taking away the arbitrary 33-years-old cut-off point, Federer has all the big records (slams, weeks at #1, consecutive weeks at #1) while playing the kind of tennis that has thrilled the world.
He also had 5-6 more years than the other two to add to his totals. That heavily skews things in Federer's favour. The table above does not, since it shows what the Big 3 achieved when they were all 33 (the age Djokovic is now). Also, all of the Big 3 played tennis that "thrilled the world." This is not exclusive to Federer. So, I do not see your point.

Djokovic still has time to catch up on the records, but he can't of course erase a career of conservative, defensive tennis.
Djokovic plays a perfect blend of offence and defence. Is it Djokovic's fault that he is a better athlete and can do things that Federer cannot?
 

Registered
Joined
2,145 Posts
I'm Novak's fan and although this table looks nice, it doesn't mean much to me. End of the race is what's important. Mats Wilander at the age of 21 had 4 slams. Federer had none. And who cares about that now? Nobody...
You cant compare 21 to 33. 33 tells you a lot more. It is far more comparable because many players retired or went downhill after this age.
 

Registered
Joined
5,900 Posts
Djokovic is a disgusting lucker. If Federer had only 10% of Djokovic鈥榮 luck throughout his career, he鈥檇 be at 25 slams and 40 masters by now
 

Banned
Joined
3,274 Posts
Djokovic is a disgusting lucker. If Federer had only 10% of Djokovic鈥榮 luck throughout his career, he鈥檇 be at 25 slams and 40 masters by now
Federer did win 13 slams without having to face any of Djokovic/Nadal. I would say luck followed Federer the most, especially when considering how weak he looked when Nadal burst on to the scenes, and later on Djokovic.
 

Premium Member
Joined
12,053 Posts
The only thing to be seen is Djokovic's longevity.

Can he keep being a slam winning Titan who is favorite at all events? Also can he stave off the hungry Thiem's , Tsitsipas's , Medvedev , etc???

No reason he shouldn't get past 20.... but at the same time its funny how we can act like getting four more slams is a given , when winning a slam is one of the hardest accomplishments in tennis....
 
1 - 20 of 99 Posts
Top