The Official Tennis Thread

[Estimator]

Can the difference between Nadal's US Open and AUS Open victories be explained? Both hard court surfaces. Yet only one victory in Australia!

[Angelo]

Can the difference between Nadal's US Open and AUS Open victories be explained? Both hard court surfaces. Yet only one victory in Australia!

Bad luck?

Nadal has been in 5 Aus Open finals, lost 4 of them. He's been in 5 US Open finals, won 4 of them.

The Wawrinka loss will hurt most as he suffered a back injury in the first set and would most certainly have won it otherwise.

[Angelo]

In terms of slams final appearances

Federer 31 finals, 20 slams

Australia 7/6
France 5/1
Wimbledon 12/8
US 7/5

Nadal 28 finals, 20 slams
Australia 5/1
France 13/13
Wimbledon 5/2
US 5/4

Djokovic 28 finals, 18 slams
Australia 9/9
France 5/1
Wimbledon 6/5
US 8/3

The most interesting aspect of that is Federer, he's only been in 4 more hard court finals than Nadal. But has won 6 more hard court slams than Nadal - what you need to take into account here is when Federer won these and who he won these slams against.

Of his 11 slam wins on hard courts these were his final opponents:

Safin
Hewitt
Agassi (mid 30s)
Bagdathis
Roddick
Gonzalez
Murray x2
Nadal
Cilic
Djokovic (being 20)

Wimbledon is a similar enough tale:

Nadal x2 (Nadal being 20 and 21 for these two)
Murray
Philipoussis
Roddick x3
Cilic

In contrast to that Nadal would have won 3 of his 5 hard court slams v Federer and Djokovic in finals, 1 of his 2 grass court slams against Federer and 7 of his 13  clay court slams against Federer and Djokovic.

[Milltown Row2]

Can the difference between Nadal's US Open and AUS Open victories be explained? Both hard court surfaces. Yet only one victory in Australia!

With the Aussie open being down under its prevents left handed tennis players from winning

[Milltown Row2]

In terms of slams final appearances

Federer 31 finals, 20 slams

Australia 7/6
France 5/1
Wimbledon 12/8
US 7/5

Nadal 28 finals, 20 slams
Australia 5/1
France 13/13
Wimbledon 5/2
US 5/4

Djokovic 28 finals, 18 slams
Australia 9/9
France 5/1
Wimbledon 6/5
US 8/3

The most interesting aspect of that is Federer, he's only been in 4 more hard court finals than Nadal. But has won 6 more hard court slams than Nadal - what you need to take into account here is when Federer won these and who he won these slams against.

Of his 11 slam wins on hard courts these were his final opponents:

Safin
Hewitt
Agassi (mid 30s)
Bagdathis
Roddick
Gonzalez
Murray x2
Nadal
Cilic
Djokovic (being 20)

Wimbledon is a similar enough tale:

Nadal x2 (Nadal being 20 and 21 for these two)
Murray
Philipoussis
Roddick x3
Cilic

In contrast to that Nadal would have won 3 of his 5 hard court slams v Federer and Djokovic in finals, 1 of his 2 grass court slams against Federer and 7 of his 13  clay court slams against Federer and Djokovic.

It makes no difference to who he beat in the final or get to the final, same Nadal or Novak. And Nadal 'would have' WTF does that mean, christ the night.

If your granny had balls and all that. you'll find away to prop up your point good for you, it doesn't take away the 20 slams each by Roger and Nadal

As for the age, Roger is 39, he'll have played longer so he'll be in more slams than Nadal, (age 34) when Nadal is 39 he'll have played in more finals that Roger

[Angelo]

In terms of slams final appearances

Federer 31 finals, 20 slams

Australia 7/6
France 5/1
Wimbledon 12/8
US 7/5

Nadal 28 finals, 20 slams
Australia 5/1
France 13/13
Wimbledon 5/2
US 5/4

Djokovic 28 finals, 18 slams
Australia 9/9
France 5/1
Wimbledon 6/5
US 8/3

The most interesting aspect of that is Federer, he's only been in 4 more hard court finals than Nadal. But has won 6 more hard court slams than Nadal - what you need to take into account here is when Federer won these and who he won these slams against.

Of his 11 slam wins on hard courts these were his final opponents:

Safin
Hewitt
Agassi (mid 30s)
Bagdathis
Roddick
Gonzalez
Murray x2
Nadal
Cilic
Djokovic (being 20)

Wimbledon is a similar enough tale:

Nadal x2 (Nadal being 20 and 21 for these two)
Murray
Philipoussis
Roddick x3
Cilic

In contrast to that Nadal would have won 3 of his 5 hard court slams v Federer and Djokovic in finals, 1 of his 2 grass court slams against Federer and 7 of his 13  clay court slams against Federer and Djokovic.

It makes no difference to who he beat in the final or get to the final, same Nadal or Novak. And Nadal 'would have' WTF does that mean, christ the night.

If your granny had balls and all that. you'll find away to prop up your point good for you, it doesn't take away the 20 slams each by Roger and Nadal

As for the age, Roger is 39, he'll have played longer so he'll be in more slams than Nadal, (age 34) when Nadal is 39 he'll have played in more finals that Roger

Context makes a huge difference but of course you don't want to focus on the data.

[Milltown Row2]

What context? 'would have'?

[Angelo]

What context? 'would have'?

The context is that Federer made hay in a weak era and it's hard to make any reasoned argument that he would have 20 slams at this point of his career if he was born 4 or 5 years later.

[Milltown Row2]

What context? 'would have'?

The context is that Federer made hay in a weak era and it's hard to make any reasoned argument that he would have 20 slams at this point of his career if he was born 4 or 5 years later.

Your opinion, that's fine. He wasn't born 4 or five years later, so that is another opinion. He'd have been younger and possibly fitter or as fit as Nadal and Novak.

With that reasoning he could have had more than 20

[Angelo]

What context? 'would have'?

The context is that Federer made hay in a weak era and it's hard to make any reasoned argument that he would have 20 slams at this point of his career if he was born 4 or 5 years later.

Your opinion, that's fine. He wasn't born 4 or five years later, so that is another opinion. He'd have been younger and possibly fitter or as fit as Nadal and Novak.

With that reasoning he could have had more than 20

Not an opinion, it's based on facts. Hewitt/Roddick/Nalbandian were top 4 players in the early stages of Federer's career. Hewitt and Roddick had slams won at the age of 20/21. Nalbandian and Roddick were younger than Federer, Hewitt about a year older. All these players were more or less washed up and has beens in the mid 20s when the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Wawrinka etc entered the scene.

Federer himself struggled really badly from 2007 onwards.

[Angelo]

We'll take the 2006 Australian Open as an indication of what Federer was up against in his earlier years.

This was the field for what was his 7th slam at the time.



Not too many big names there. A grand total of 7 slams won by players seeded 2-32.

32nd seed Carlos Moya won a solitary French Open 8 years prior to that.
15th seed Juan Carlos Ferrero won a solitary French Open 3 years prior to that.
10th seed Thomas Johansson won a solitary Australian Open 4 years prior to that.
8th seed Gaston Gaudio won a solitary French Open 2 years prior to that.
3rd seed Lleyton Hewitt had tow slams, the last of which was won 4 years prior to that.
2nd seed Roddick had won a solitary US Open 3 years prior to that.

[Rich Ricci]

I see people weighing Nadal down because he has dominated one surface whereas I'd be inclined to mark the other 2 down on their inability to win on clay. To me the GOAT should be the greatest all-rounder and the fact that Federer has won once on clay in a year where a pomp Nadal was injured is a major slight on his career.

Probably a fair enough point on Federer having it easy in his early years compared to peak Nadal/Djokovic. Jesus they had to beat each other as well as Andy Murray who in any other era would have at least 10.

I think Djokovic will probably end up with most overall but would need another French to cement it imo.

Nadal can probably be criticised for his performances on grass. Hasn't made the final since 2011 and has been beaten by lesser players a few times. He was unlucky to be injured in 2009 because he was far and away the best player 08-10 and and would probably have won Wimbledon that year.

[Milltown Row2]

What context? 'would have'?

The context is that Federer made hay in a weak era and it's hard to make any reasoned argument that he would have 20 slams at this point of his career if he was born 4 or 5 years later.

Your opinion, that's fine. He wasn't born 4 or five years later, so that is another opinion. He'd have been younger and possibly fitter or as fit as Nadal and Novak.

With that reasoning he could have had more than 20

Not an opinion, it's based on facts. Hewitt/Roddick/Nalbandian were top 4 players in the early stages of Federer's career. Hewitt and Roddick had slams won at the age of 20/21. Nalbandian and Roddick were younger than Federer, Hewitt about a year older. All these players were more or less washed up and has beens in the mid 20s when the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Wawrinka etc entered the scene.

Federer himself struggled really badly from 2007 onwards.

No, the fact is he won 20 slams, who he beat were slam winners, not chumps..

Berdych never won a slam, Del Potro has won one, Tsonga none.....

[Angelo]

What context? 'would have'?

The context is that Federer made hay in a weak era and it's hard to make any reasoned argument that he would have 20 slams at this point of his career if he was born 4 or 5 years later.

Your opinion, that's fine. He wasn't born 4 or five years later, so that is another opinion. He'd have been younger and possibly fitter or as fit as Nadal and Novak.

With that reasoning he could have had more than 20

Not an opinion, it's based on facts. Hewitt/Roddick/Nalbandian were top 4 players in the early stages of Federer's career. Hewitt and Roddick had slams won at the age of 20/21. Nalbandian and Roddick were younger than Federer, Hewitt about a year older. All these players were more or less washed up and has beens in the mid 20s when the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Wawrinka etc entered the scene.

Federer himself struggled really badly from 2007 onwards.

No, the fact is he won 20 slams, who he beat were slam winners, not chumps..

Berdych never won a slam, Del Potro has won one, Tsonga none.....

Yet they did left the likes of Hewitt, Roddick and Nalbandian as washed up has beens in their mid 20s and those guys were Federer's main rivals when he was clearing up slams 03-07.

[Milltown Row2]

What context? 'would have'?

The context is that Federer made hay in a weak era and it's hard to make any reasoned argument that he would have 20 slams at this point of his career if he was born 4 or 5 years later.

Your opinion, that's fine. He wasn't born 4 or five years later, so that is another opinion. He'd have been younger and possibly fitter or as fit as Nadal and Novak.

With that reasoning he could have had more than 20

Not an opinion, it's based on facts. Hewitt/Roddick/Nalbandian were top 4 players in the early stages of Federer's career. Hewitt and Roddick had slams won at the age of 20/21. Nalbandian and Roddick were younger than Federer, Hewitt about a year older. All these players were more or less washed up and has beens in the mid 20s when the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Wawrinka etc entered the scene.

Federer himself struggled really badly from 2007 onwards.

No, the fact is he won 20 slams, who he beat were slam winners, not chumps..

Berdych never won a slam, Del Potro has won one, Tsonga none.....

Yet they did left the likes of Hewitt, Roddick and Nalbandian as washed up has beens in their mid 20s and those guys were Federer's main rivals when he was clearing up slams 03-07.

So slam winners are rubbish?