Fedalovic Wars

[MargaretMcAleer]

In case anyone's curious, here's a larger chart with the players that I consider the top nine of the Open Era:

View attachment 9659
Color Code: Blue - hards, Green - grass, Orange - clay, Pink - carpet.

Explanation: Above the center line are Slams, below everything else. Slams are a darker color, with Tour Finals and Olympics medium and everything else lighter. Size correlates roughly with ATP points: one cell for ATP 250s, two cells for ATP 500s, four cells for Masters and Alt Finals, five cells for Olympics (except for '84, which is three cells), and Slams are eight cells.

As you can see, this illustrates the greatness of the Big Three, but it also shows how the others all had periods of time of similar--or at least, close--dominance. It also shows the range of and the different variations on surface dominance.

The chart also shows how while Sampras won more Slams, his overall dominance was similar to that of Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl. I think this is less about winning the big ones and more about different emphasis on titles. The older three, especially Borg and Mac, usually only played in three Slams, and their focus was less "Slam-centric."

As far as the Big Three are concerned, Novak and Roger are actually pretty similar visually. Roger was a bit more centered on his early prime, while Novak is more distributed (though you can see how he had two prime periods, the greater 2011-16 and then the slightly lesser 2018-23). Rafa's stands out in two ways: One, the obvious dominance of clay, and secondly that he didn't have the extended peak eras of some of the other greats, but his excellence was more spread out - again, the result of his greatness on clay.

Anyhow, I'll add a second chart of the next tier of players - the "lesser ATGs" - and throw in a few "near greats," for visual comparison.

El Dude
Where do you get these charts from or do you do them yourself, they are impressive

 

[El Dude]

El Dude
Where do you get these charts from or do you do them yourself, they are impressive

I do them myself. I find them a nice combination of relaxing and focused, and usually do them when listening to a podcast or watching a show. My version of video games ;-)

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I do them myself. I find them a nice combination of relaxing and focused, and usually do them when listening to a podcast or watching a show. My version of video games ;-)

Good for you, well done!

 

[El Dude]

I've added a second chart, or continuation of the first, with the lesser ATGs and a handful of near greats and elite players. As you can see, I included all the guys with at least 4 Slams, but then tried to just include an assortment of better 0-3 Slam winners. Not meant to be comprehensive, in other words. Note that Juan Carlos Ferrero is cut off at the bottom.

Anyhow, this one is interesting because you get to see how, say, Wilander, Becker, and Edberg "look" relative to each other, and then how someone like Andy Murray compares. Guys like Nastase, Kuerten, Courier, and Hewitt had very strong 2-3 year peaks, but were otherwise garden variety top 10-20ish players. Meaning, the difference between, say, Jim Courier and Boris Becker--in terms of overall careers--has a lot to do with not only longevity, but how long a player was able to reach a high level. Courier won big titles within a four-year span, and Slams in a three-year span, while Becker won big titles and Slams over 12 years.

 

[Front242]

Roger gives us some cover concerning that '05 YEC! I don't remember watching much of the match, but later Fed complained about a bad ankle! Not sure if on "a shot," but back then, every loss of Federer had to have an explanation! Even I gave him cover concerning his rivalry w/ Nadal that wasn't as Rafa owned Roger "lock, stock, & barrel" from early on!: We tried to rationalize most of the wins were on clay when Roger was going down, even on nhis beloved grass to the "GOAT-in-waiting" after Sampras set Major's record at 14 just 3 years before! I give Roger a lot of credit w/ a string of wins over Rafa late when they were on their "Fedal Redux" tour while Novak was wandering the desert in search of his game, his personal life, & a healed elbow!

Federer off crutches, aims for Shanghai return

World No. 1 Roger Federer hopes to have recovered from a foot injury in time for next month's season-ending Masters Cup.

www.espn.com

 

[Nadalfan2013]

He clearly is the most accomplished when you look at things statistically and longevity wise. He has broken almost all the records of significance and he did battling these two during most of their primes.

Longevity?

Nadal won slams from 2005-2022 = 17 years
Djokovic won slams from 2008-2024 = 16 years

The only reason Djokovic has more "numbers" is because of Nadal having tons of injuries throughout his career and missing so many slams and months of play in his prime (often when he was the defending champion!), otherwise Nadal would own most of the records.

And it's Nadal who battled when both were in his prime. Federer won a lot before both were there, and Djokovic won a lot after both were not there. Nadal? He always had to deal with either prime Federer or prime Djokovic... ALWAYS! He was sandwished between both and never had an era that was "empty" from the other 2.

 

[Front242]

Longevity?

Nadal won slams from 2005-2022 = 17 years
Djokovic won slams from 2008-2024 = 16 years

The only reason Djokovic has more "numbers" is because of Nadal having tons of injuries throughout his career and missing so many slams and months of play in his prime (often when he was the defending champion!), otherwise Nadal would own most of the records.

And it's Nadal who battled when both were in his prime. Federer won a lot before both were there, and Djokovic won a lot after both were not there. Nadal? He always had to deal with either prime Federer or prime Djokovic... ALWAYS! He was sandwished between both and never had an era that was "empty" from the other 2.

A large part of greatness is staying fit and minimizing injury. You make your own luck. If you run down every single ball, expect to get injured. Andy Murray is a prime example.

 

[shawnbm]

Longevity?

Nadal won slams from 2005-2022 = 17 years
Djokovic won slams from 2008-2024 = 16 years

The only reason Djokovic has more "numbers" is because of Nadal having tons of injuries throughout his career and missing so many slams and months of play in his prime (often when he was the defending champion!), otherwise Nadal would own most of the records.

And it's Nadal who battled when both were in his prime. Federer won a lot before both were there, and Djokovic won a lot after both were not there. Nadal? He always had to deal with either prime Federer or prime Djokovic... ALWAYS! He was sandwished between both and never had an era that was "empty" from the other 2.

Roger won over a 16 year period as well. The rest is well ... you.

 

[Moxie]

A large part of greatness is staying fit and minimizing injury. You make your own luck. If you run down every single ball, expect to get injured. Andy Murray is a prime example.

Djokovic has always run down a lot of balls, and famously slides on all surfaces. He works hard on his flexibility, which I always give him a lot of credit for, but he's been lucky, too. One horrifying roll of the ankle, and Zverev lost most of a year. It's not really a one-to-one thing.

 

[Front242]

Djokovic has always run down a lot of balls, and famously slides on all surfaces. He works hard on his flexibility, which I always give him a lot of credit for, but he's been lucky, too. One horrifying roll of the ankle, and Zverev lost most of a year. It's not really a one-to-one thing.

I'm not going with luck there personally and putting it down to his yoga and flexibility. His stretching is what keeps him nimble along with his lack of bulk.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not going with luck there personally and putting it down to his yoga and flexibility. His stretching is what keeps him nimble along with his lack of bulk.

Those are contributing factors, for sure. As was Roger's efficiency, which kept him healthy for a long time. But there is luck involved. Let me also remind you about David Goffin stepping back onto a tarp when going for a shot at the French Open in 2017, I think, and having to bow out. Or when Tommy Haas stepped on a tennis ball at Wimbledon. Plus, bodies are built differently. Why should Del Potro's and Thiem's wrists have done them in?

It's overly simplistic to blame a playing style for injury. And it is also true that Nadal had to miss more Majors than the other big 3, while maintaining a higher win percentage at them than either of the other 2. And to the main point of the current conversation, he still maintained winning years for longer, at the Majors. It's simply a point of fact.

 

[Fiero425]

Those are contributing factors, for sure. As was Roger's efficiency, which kept him healthy for a long time. But there is luck involved. Let me also remind you about David Goffin stepping back onto a tarp when going for a shot at the French Open in 2017, I think, and having to bow out. Or when Tommy Haas stepped on a tennis ball at Wimbledon. Plus, bodies are built differently. Why should Del Potro's and Thiem's wrists have done them in?

It's overly simplistic to blame a playing style for injury. And it is also true that Nadal had to miss more Majors than the other big 3, while maintaining a higher win percentage at them than either of the other 2. And to the main point of the current conversation, he still maintained winning years for longer, at the Majors. It's simply a point of fact.

Gotta keep Nadal's name out there & relevant I guess! Truly scratchin' for it I see! BTW, Novak picked up another record this year; the only player w/ at least 88 career match wins at each major! If not for just 88 wins at USO, the rec. w/b min. 96 singles wins at each major! He skipped or went out early a few times w/ injury or DQ over the years! The USO has been a lot of players' Kryptonite; usually the FO would come into play! Lucky Roger got 1 w/ upset of Nadal! Novak might continue on past this season, but if I want to be consistent, "NOVAK should retire if he steals another USO over the newbie champs of Sinner & Alcaraz!" I think he has a bit left in him, but can't see the motivation! I guess he can push all the records he owns to #'s that may stand the test of time! Something significantly would have to change like going BO3 at majors or Next Gen. scoring to save their bodies! Again, no one will have the longevity, stamina, & consistency of Fedalovic ever! Their bodies should be examined later for bionic parts!

 

[Moxie]

Gotta keep Nadal's name out there & relevant I guess! Truly scratchin' for it I see! BTW, Novak picked up another record this year; the only player w/ at least 88 career match wins at each major! If not for just 88 wins at USO, the rec. w/b min. 96 singles wins at each major! He skipped or went out early a few times w/ injury or DQ over the years! The USO has been a lot of players' Kryptonite; usually the FO would come into play! Lucky Roger got 1 w/ upset of Nadal! Novak might continue on past this season, but if I want to be consistent, "NOVAK should retire if he steals another USO over the newbie champs of Sinner & Alcaraz!" I think he has a bit left in him, but can't see the motivation! I guess he can push all the records he owns to #'s that may stand the test of time! Something significantly would have to change like going BO3 at majors or Next Gen. scoring to save their bodies! Again, no one will have the longevity, stamina, & consistency of Fedalovic ever! Their bodies should be examined later for bionic parts!

It doesn't take me saying it to make Nadal relevant to this conversation. You old "hateh!"

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

If I had to put money on it, I think Novak Djokovic will retire after the last slam in 2028, whether that be the US Open (or the French Open if it is moved to fall due to Wimbledon being moved earlier to not interfere with the Olympics). Djokovic is adamant about defending his Olympic Gold medal. Plus, I think he wants to at least pass Roger in match wins and titles (and maybe go for Connors records in both), which are attainable if he plays 4 more years. Also, if the French Open is the last slam in 2028, I think it would be fitting for Novak if he retired at the place where he won Gold.

 

[El Dude]

And it is also true that Nadal had to miss more Majors than the other big 3, while maintaining a higher win percentage at them than either of the other 2.

A point of contention here, Moxie. He has overall higher winning percentage at Slams, but that's because of his dominance at Roland Garros. He has a lower win percentage at all three other Slams than Roger and Novak - and is overall third best at all three.

I mean, we're back to the problem of comparing them - which is mainly due to Rafa's asymmetry. For me, as a stat nerd, it makes things interesting. I love weird outliers and statistical quandaries. But it also makes such statements as you made a bit deceptive (not saying it was intentional).

To put that visually, I've prepared a little chart. This shows Slam titles and PEP for each Slam. The titles are the height, the PEP the width. Slam PEP are: W 10, F 5, SF 3, QF 1.

It probably goes without saying, but gold is Rafa, purple Novak, red Roger.

We could create all sorts of charts, and the same basic premise would hold: a huge portion of Rafa's dominance is not only on clay, but in the context of Slams, at a single Slam. At the other three he's the worst of the three. This is NOT a knock on Rafa or diminishing his overall greatness, but just re-emphasizing the asymmetry of it.

 

[Fiero425]

A point of contention here, Moxie. He has overall higher winning percentage at Slams, but that's because of his dominance at Roland Garros. He has a lower win percentage at all three other Slams than Roger and Novak - and is overall third best at all three.

I mean, we're back to the problem of comparing them - which is mainly due to Rafa's asymmetry. For me, as a stat nerd, it makes things interesting. I love weird outliers and statistical quandaries. But it also makes such statements as you made a bit deceptive (not saying it was intentional).

To put that visually, I've prepared a little chart. This shows Slam titles and PEP for each Slam. The titles are the height, the PEP the width. Slam PEP are: W 10, F 5, SF 3, QF 1.

View attachment 9678


It probably goes without saying, but gold is Rafa, purple Novak, red Roger.

We could create all sorts of charts, and the same basic premise would hold: a huge portion of Rafa's dominance is not only on clay, but in the context of Slams, at a single Slam. At the other three he's the worst of the three. This is NOT a knock on Rafa or diminishing his overall greatness, but just re-emphasizing the asymmetry of it.

This is probably why I've always tried to undermine the praise heaped on Rafa w/ such good #'s overall when most of his fame achieved was in Europe on clay! Subtract that dominance & he drops quite a bit since he woefully underachieved at Wimbledon & the AO! Federer will always be sorta above all other players w/ multiple streaks of 5 in traditionally the 2 top majors; Wimbledon & USO! His problem was "getting fat" off players not in his class until Rafa & Novak came along! He wound up have a losing record against both of them so in "the books" he's in 3rd place, but those 2 streaks elevates him IMO! Djokovic helps his case being dominant at 2 majors & "holding his own" in a 3rd! He really represented, being quite record driven as his career couldn't be more symmetrical winning 12 majors early, then 12 majors late! Add on 4 seasons winning 3 of 4 majors in a season; again 2 early, then 2 late! He has almost 100 titles w/ a quarter being major wins, elevated w/ 7 YEC's & an OGM! The record 40 Masters wins takes him to almost half of his other titles are Big! He isn't the MASTER of 250's & 500's like other so called Greats! After all's said & done, esp. a century down the line, IDK how anyone can match Novak!

 

[El Dude]

This is probably why I've always tried to undermine the praise heaped on Rafa w/ such good #'s overall when most of his fame achieved was in Europe on clay! Subtract that dominance & he drops quite a bit since he woefully underachieved at Wimbledon & the AO! Federer will always be sorta above all other players w/ multiple streaks of 5 in traditionally the 2 top majors; Wimbledon & USO! His problem was "getting fat" off players not in his class until Rafa & Novak came along! He wound up have a losing record against both of them so in "the books" he's in 3rd place, but those 2 streaks elevates him IMO! Djokovic helps his case being dominant at 2 majors & "holding his own" in a 3rd! He really represented, being quite record driven as his career couldn't be more symmetrical winning 12 majors early, then 12 majors late! Add on 4 seasons winning 3 of 4 majors in a season; again 2 early, then 2 late! He has almost 100 titles w/ a quarter being major wins, elevated w/ 7 YEC's & an OGM! The record 40 Masters wins takes him to almost half of his other titles are Big! He isn't the MASTER of 250's & 500's like other so called Greats! After all's said & done, esp. a century down the line, IDK how anyone can match Novak!

Where we diverge is in you thinking that Rafa's asymmetry takes away from his greatness. I don't think it does; my bringing it up was to nitpick Moxie's stat (about win% at Slams), but more so to point out the difficulty of comparing him "one to one" with the other two. And Moxie is right in that Rafa was so absurdly dominant on clay that it brought his overall level to commensurate with the other two.

I also think you sell him a bit short at the AO and Wimbledon. Yes, he only has 2 Slam titles on each - but that's still more than all but a handful of players. And at Wimbledon his problem was similar to Roger's on clay: he played alongside two of the three greatest Wimbledon champions of the Open Era (though to be fair, Novak didn't get really good until Rafa's grass peak was ending). Also, like Roger on clay, his "grass peak" was relatively short. But it was a pretty fantastic peak, with five Wimbledon finals in a row (skipping over the missed 2009) winning two of them.

His AO record is interesting, but if you look at his four finals losses, it is understandable: he faced Novak twice on his best court, Stanimal, and Roger during his 2017 resurgence. Not sure why he went out in the QF so often, though. Talk about asymmetry: six finals (2 won), just 1 SF, and 7 QFs.

Of course we still come back to the same place: Rafa was third fiddle at the AO, Wimbledon, and the USO. But he was a pretty great third fiddle, and his dominance at Roland Garros was so extreme that it closes the gap.

 

[El Dude]

p.s. While I agree that it is hard imagining any player ever equalling--let alone surpassing--the Big Three, you just never know, and young Carlos has me wondering. It is waaaay too soon to think (seriously) about that, but what he's doing at his young age is astonishing. But he's got some major milestones to pass before we start talking Big Three level.

For one, he's still at a point where he could end up being another Becker or Wilander. I think he's better than both - he's just more well-rounded and has already won Slams on all three surfaces. But things happen.

Secondly, the vast majority of greats build up 90% or more of their big accomplishments before turning 30. Connors won only 2 of his 8 Slams in his 30s, and he turned 30 during #7. Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker won all of their Slams before turning 30. Sampras won just 1 of 14 in his 30s, and even Agassi only won 2 of 8 in his 30s. Adding all nine together, that's 75 Slam titles, only 4 or 5 won in their 30s (depending upon how you count Jimmy's 1982 USO). That's 93-95% of Slams won by ATGs between the 1974 and 2003 AOs won before turning 30 years old, or less than 7% in their 30s.

Once we get to the Big Three, Roger won 4 of 20 in his 30s (20% in 30s), Rafa 8 of 22 (36%), and Novak 12 of 24 (50%). Interestingly, each added four more than the previous one - pushing longevity further back - though Novak (and maybe Rafa) isn't done yet. They're anomalies if you look at greats from the previous 30 years before Roger's first Slam, but not if you look back further at Rosewall, Laver, and some older guys from before the Open Era.

More than anything, we don't know how Alcaraz will age - but presumably medicine will only get better. And before he gets to his 30th birthday, he has to win a ton of Slams. If he averages 1.5 a year from age 22-29, he'll have 16+ Slams by his 30th birthday. That's a nice start! But let's revisit if and when he gets to #10. Then we can start dreaming big, at least depending upon when he does it.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

This is probably why I've always tried to undermine the praise heaped on Rafa w/ such good #'s overall when most of his fame achieved was in Europe on clay! Subtract that dominance & he drops quite a bit since he woefully underachieved at Wimbledon & the AO! Federer will always be sorta above all other players w/ multiple streaks of 5 in traditionally the 2 top majors; Wimbledon & USO! His problem was "getting fat" off players not in his class until Rafa & Novak came along! He wound up have a losing record against both of them so in "the books" he's in 3rd place, but those 2 streaks elevates him IMO! Djokovic helps his case being dominant at 2 majors & "holding his own" in a 3rd! He really represented, being quite record driven as his career couldn't be more symmetrical winning 12 majors early, then 12 majors late! Add on 4 seasons winning 3 of 4 majors in a season; again 2 early, then 2 late! He has almost 100 titles w/ a quarter being major wins, elevated w/ 7 YEC's & an OGM! The record 40 Masters wins takes him to almost half of his other titles are Big! He isn't the MASTER of 250's & 500's like other so called Greats! After all's said & done, esp. a century down the line, IDK how anyone can match Novak!

2001-2004 were the years Roger could have "gotten fat" off players not in his class, and he had 4 slams at that point, with 2004 being his only dominant year in that stretch. Rafa came along in 2005 (he won 11 titles that year and beat Roger at the French Open for his first slam). After that, Roger won 16 slams, which is 80% of his total slams - and more than what Pete won in his career. So, Roger did most of his winning when Rafa (and later Novak, yes Roger won 8 slams after Novak won his first) came along. If anyone got fat off players not in his class it was Lleyton Hewitt, who won the 2 slams early (in 2001 and 2002), and never won again.

 

[shawnbm]

I always enjoy El Dude's stats. I do not know how he can do this so quickly and where he finds the time! LOL

The chart he put up earlier conference what I have thought for some time about how the three of them compare across all four of the majors. One thing I would like to do is which of the three lost more often in the majors before the court or final is? When it comes to the championships at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, I believe the answer to that question is most likely the great Spanish Bull. I do not know if that is the same with the Australian open. Conversely, I would imagine Roger lost more often before the court or files that the other two, but I do not know as Novak may have lost the earlier a few times as well. I never would have thunk that the three of these guys would win so many majors in her 30s, particularly both Novak and Rafa-- just by virtue of how they play and I physically demanding that style of play is. It is really quite amazing. Interestingly, it was Roger who retired first, although five years and six years old and the other two, due to knee problems and surgery. I would have thought that with his first strike tennis and fluid movement with seemingly less physical exertion and the other two, he would outlasted them even though he was older! LOL