Roger should send Novak flowers

[DarthFed]

Dear God man, you are way more intelligent than you are showing here.

IF Rafa won ALL 5 of the ones I just listed he would then still be slightly worse vs. the field as you showed. Now, if he lost in ANY of those tournaments he would now have more losses vs. the field and it'd be a bigger gap. And chances are he missed more than just those listed if we are going back to 2003.

One other way to look at this would be to completely take out any majors in which Rafa and Fed played and tally up what their slam wins would look like. Roger would have 15 and Rafa would have 6.

Yeah, he still would be 2-3 losses worse against the field, but he'd have at least THREE EXTRA SLAMS, making this debate settled, and making the fact that he's got 3, 4 or even 10 more losses against the field absolutely irrelevant. That's my whole argument.

As far as the second part, we both know that's a ridiculous way of putting it.

My point is, 19 losses vs 21 is really minor, and I bet you didn't think it would be that close. Your original argument was that Federer has done "WAY" better against the field. This is simply untrue. He's done better, slightly better.

I did think it'd be that close actually. I will again try to put this in easy terms. Let's play the what if player X never existed game: If Fed never existed Rafa would be going on 16 slams today, if Rafa never existed it is very likely Roger would be at 25 (I am excluding only 2012 AO). This really isn't rocket science here.

Well... to play Front's "Fed has been on the tour longer card," this is normal because Fed has been on tour longer, and thus racked up some slams A) before Nadal broke through and B) Before Nadal peaked (meaning Nadal wasn't reaching him in some of those slams in say, 05 and 06). Like I said in my original post, this only highlights the age discrepancy between them, and is pretty telling with regards to their respective peaks.

So yeah, that really doesn't tell anything and it's not rocket science indeed.

Ahh, typical case where someone won't admit they are wrong. Roger had 4 slams before Rafa won his first not 9. And yes Rafa took a few years to hit his peak and now we have the reverse where Roger is way out of his prime and Rafa is at his peak. Again 25 - 16 is the true gage vs. "the others". You don't get credit for sitting out tournaments.

 

[huntingyou]

Then you have the Borg effect where his career winning % is great because he ran for the hills as soon as there was some adversity. I guess Borg was better vs. the field than Roger too. If Roger had retired after 2007 (comparable age to Borg) his winning % would have been probably about as high as Borg's. Instead Roger stuck around and lost a crap load more but grabbed 5 slams. And now he is at full on scrub level from 2013 on. That win % will get more pathetic, soon Murray and others probably will pass it. I guess they were better vs. the field too though right :laydownlaughing

Borg was the most toughest out in ATP history, that's what his winning percentage tells me. Interpret facts as you wish.

Murray will never get close to Roger's winning percentage unless Roger stick around MUCH longer.

 

[huntingyou]

Ahh, typical case where someone won't admit they are wrong. Roger had 4 slams before Rafa won his first not 9. And yes Rafa took a few years to hit his peak and now we have the reverse where Roger is way out of his prime and Rafa is at his peak. Again 25 - 16 is the true gage vs. "the others". You don't get credit for sitting out tournaments.

You are giving Roger victories in matches he never played to get to 25

The IF world, the only place soft enough for Roger fans to cling to.

 

[DarthFed]

Then you have the Borg effect where his career winning % is great because he ran for the hills as soon as there was some adversity. I guess Borg was better vs. the field than Roger too. If Roger had retired after 2007 (comparable age to Borg) his winning % would have been probably about as high as Borg's. Instead Roger stuck around and lost a crap load more but grabbed 5 slams. And now he is at full on scrub level from 2013 on. That win % will get more pathetic, soon Murray and others probably will pass it. I guess they were better vs. the field too though right :laydownlaughing

Borg was the most toughest out in ATP history, that's what his winning percentage tells me. Interpret facts as you wish.

Murray will never get close to Roger's winning percentage unless Roger stick around MUCH longer.

Roger's winning % isn't even top 5. If he was going mainly for that he has already stuck around WAY too long. Borg's % is inflated, that is obvious. If Roger retired at age 26 his % would be high instead of the current unimpressive % whatever it is (I'd bet low 80's).

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ahh, typical case where someone won't admit they are wrong. Roger had 4 slams before Rafa won his first not 9. And yes Rafa took a few years to hit his peak and now we have the reverse where Roger is way out of his prime and Rafa is at his peak.

That's literally what I said in my very first post about the topic.

However, answer this, why are we acting like the first 4 years of Roger's career never took place? Or is it Nadal's fault he was good enough to win his first slam at 19?

 

[Front242]

Apparently this is the current stat for Fed:

Career record 926–216 (81.09% in ATP World Tour and Grand Slam main draw matches, and in Davis Cup)

And Nadal

Career record 663–129 (83.71% in ATP World Tour and Grand Slam main draw matches, and in Davis Cup)

 

[DarthFed]

Ahh, typical case where someone won't admit they are wrong. Roger had 4 slams before Rafa won his first not 9. And yes Rafa took a few years to hit his peak and now we have the reverse where Roger is way out of his prime and Rafa is at his peak. Again 25 - 16 is the true gage vs. "the others". You don't get credit for sitting out tournaments.

You are giving Roger victories in matches he never played to get to 25

The IF world, the only place soft enough for Roger fans to cling to.

Yea, he was going to lose to Puerta in 05, Djokovic in 07 and 08 RG, Verdasco in 09, Wawrinka this year, Davydenko? in 06, the nobody in the 08 Wimbledon semi and Murray in 11 RG.

We could do the winning % at majors vs. "the others too" but those wins don't count as much apparently.

 

[DarthFed]

Ahh, typical case where someone won't admit they are wrong. Roger had 4 slams before Rafa won his first not 9. And yes Rafa took a few years to hit his peak and now we have the reverse where Roger is way out of his prime and Rafa is at his peak.

That's literally what I said in my very first post about the topic.

However, answer this, why are we acting like the first 4 years of Roger's career never took place? Or is it Nadal's fault he was good enough to win his first slam at 19?

Who said they weren't relevant? I am talking about winning slams, not going out early. Roger has been WAY better at winning slams vs. Non-Rafa players than Rafa has been at winning slams vs. Non-Fed players. We could look at the losses part too where Rafa has lost often to clowns in early rounds.

 

[Front242]

GOAT calculations in career achievements.

Clown losses (% and match totals). Class stat

 

[DarthFed]

Apparently this is the current stat for Fed:

Career record 926–216 (81.09% in ATP World Tour and Grand Slam main draw matches, and in Davis Cup)

And Nadal

Career record 663–129 (83.71% in ATP World Tour and Grand Slam main draw matches, and in Davis Cup)

Pretty ugly winning % that figures to get worse. It was likely close to 85% 5 years ago I'd imagine.

 

[Front242]

Apparently this is the current stat for Fed:

Career record 926–216 (81.09% in ATP World Tour and Grand Slam main draw matches, and in Davis Cup)

And Nadal

Career record 663–129 (83.71% in ATP World Tour and Grand Slam main draw matches, and in Davis Cup)

Pretty ugly winning % that figures to get worse. It was likely close to 85% 5 years ago I'd imagine.

Probably yup. But it works both ways. He's won 4 slams since 2009.

 

[huntingyou]

Ahh, typical case where someone won't admit they are wrong. Roger had 4 slams before Rafa won his first not 9. And yes Rafa took a few years to hit his peak and now we have the reverse where Roger is way out of his prime and Rafa is at his peak.

That's literally what I said in my very first post about the topic.

However, answer this, why are we acting like the first 4 years of Roger's career never took place? Or is it Nadal's fault he was good enough to win his first slam at 19?

Who said they weren't relevant? I am talking about winning slams, not going out early. Roger has been WAY better at winning slams vs. Non-Rafa players than Rafa has been at winning slams vs. Non-Fed players. We could look at the losses part too where Rafa has lost often to clowns in early rounds.

What makes Rafa so great is that he has been winning Slams through Roger and Novak and to some extent Murray.

You are taking the crux of the argument of Rafa's greatness and instead you are substituting it for an IF world that only you can navigate.

 

[Front242]

Last few years it's not a great achievement playing a guy who bent over for you since 2008 and these days doesn't even win a set.

 

[DarthFed]

Apparently this is the current stat for Fed:

Career record 926–216 (81.09% in ATP World Tour and Grand Slam main draw matches, and in Davis Cup)

And Nadal

Career record 663–129 (83.71% in ATP World Tour and Grand Slam main draw matches, and in Davis Cup)

Pretty ugly winning % that figures to get worse. It was likely close to 85% 5 years ago I'd imagine.

Probably yup. But it works both ways. He's won 4 slams since 2009.

Yeah I'm not complaining. Roger is a whole different class of greatness than Borg but he would have basically been his clone if he retired after 2008.

 

[huntingyou]

Last few years it's not a great achievement playing a guy who bent over for you since 2008 and these days doesn't even win a set.

Roger would have won 2014 AO if it wasn't for Rafa? Maybe?

Think what you want, at this point your arguments are all hypothetical.

I'm out

 

[DarthFed]

Ahh, typical case where someone won't admit they are wrong. Roger had 4 slams before Rafa won his first not 9. And yes Rafa took a few years to hit his peak and now we have the reverse where Roger is way out of his prime and Rafa is at his peak.

That's literally what I said in my very first post about the topic.

However, answer this, why are we acting like the first 4 years of Roger's career never took place? Or is it Nadal's fault he was good enough to win his first slam at 19?

Who said they weren't relevant? I am talking about winning slams, not going out early. Roger has been WAY better at winning slams vs. Non-Rafa players than Rafa has been at winning slams vs. Non-Fed players. We could look at the losses part too where Rafa has lost often to clowns in early rounds.

What makes Rafa so great is that he has been winning Slams through Roger and Novak and to some extent Murray.

You are taking the crux of the argument of Rafa's greatness and instead you are substituting it for an IF world that only you can navigate.

No, what I've done is clearly show that Rafa has been inferior vs. the rest of the field in slams compared to Roger. That's why there is even a discussion at this point. I have been using the what if game because for whatever reason the original points have been hard to follow.

And you are using Murray as tremendous competition? And what do you think Roger in his prime does to the pathetic state of him in 2011-14 in particular, not to mention 08 and 09 when he was at least still a great player.

 

[Front242]

Last few years it's not a great achievement playing a guy who bent over for you since 2008 and these days doesn't even win a set.

Roger would have won 2014 AO if it wasn't for Rafa? Maybe?

Think what you want, at this point your arguments are all hypothetical.

I'm out

Nothing hypothetical about it. A 27 year old is expected to beat a 32 year old, especially when he was doing so when said 32 year old was in his prime. It's not that hard to comprehend.

 

[Riotbeard]

Darth ignores the painful truth, nobody has as many quality wins as Nadal. Despite his insistence of focusing on Nadal losses at the slams as ridiculous if it was to a guy like Tsonga at the AO; it wont change this.

Rafa went through Federer when Roger was ranked #1 and #2 to win his Slams; he also went through Novak when he was ranked #1 and #3 to win a good share as well. His Gonzalez, Davydenkos, Hewits and Roddicks of the world are far less than Roger. (SW19 2010, RG 2010)

Rafa it's the ultimate SLAYER of BIG PREY, something Roger has been found wanting.

The best player of THIS generation will be recognize as the Greatest soon........it's only a formality at this point.

Except for that it is all relative. I honestly will probably never view Rafa as the greatest, even if he becomes the most accomplished in slams.

But yes rafa does do better against other big boys. Although, Fed was dominant against his generation, just not those those who supplanted him. Part of that is his mind/nature, part of it is he stuck around into dotage, even though OAP Fed is obviously still very good.

it's not relative and it really it doesn't matter if you in particular doesn't see Rafa as the best. Rafa has an opportunity to be the most accomplish player in tennis...not just slams.

BTW, Roger is part of Rafa's generation........I mean he has played 33 times against the guy and their first match was soon after Roger got his #1 for the first time.

Is so relative .

Being pro at the same time for a long period is not the same as being in the same generation. Nalbandian, Roddick, and Hewitt are fed's generation. It doesn't devalue the Fedal rivalry to point out the truth. For most of Roger's peak, Rafa was a developing player 3/4s of the year. They have a five year age difference. The last year of Roger's peak (~2008) was the first year of Rafa's. In my opinion that constitutes a different generation, unless Rafa and Dimitrov are the same generation.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ahh, typical case where someone won't admit they are wrong. Roger had 4 slams before Rafa won his first not 9. And yes Rafa took a few years to hit his peak and now we have the reverse where Roger is way out of his prime and Rafa is at his peak.

That's literally what I said in my very first post about the topic.

However, answer this, why are we acting like the first 4 years of Roger's career never took place? Or is it Nadal's fault he was good enough to win his first slam at 19?

Who said they weren't relevant? I am talking about winning slams, not going out early. Roger has been WAY better at winning slams vs. Non-Rafa players than Rafa has been at winning slams vs. Non-Fed players. We could look at the losses part too where Rafa has lost often to clowns in early rounds.

Because when we're talking about how each player is doing against the field, you can't simply limit it to the slams they won. In fact, the slams they lost are in many ways more telling. Roger wasn't doing so well against the field before 2003 now was he?

It seems like you're punishing Nadal for always having to face Roger in many of the slams he won, which makes no sense. And yeah, you'll say that the fact that Roger didn't have to play Nadal in most of the slams he won shows that Nadal wasn't there to meet him (so Nadal wasn't doing well against the field), but that's due to Nadal not having peaked yet. And if you're going to say "Oh, well tough luck" then I can point out to Roger's first four years where he wasn't reaching the finals of anything to play anyone, but Nadal was not even a pro back then to capitalize...once again highlighting the age discrepancy, which is, again, literally the first point I emphasized in this discussion.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Last few years it's not a great achievement playing a guy who bent over for you since 2008 and these days doesn't even win a set.

See...THIS is exactly my issue with these argument. We are taking one of the greatest achievements of Nadal's career (having such a resounding record against arguably the greatest player to have ever played the game) and acting like it's not a big deal.

Now, why has Roger not "bent over" to anyone else, ever? What does it say that he "bends over" to Nadal? What does that say about Nadal's greatness?

We're talking about Roger Federer, a man who had a reign of terror over tennis. A man who nobody could touch. And here we are, with someone who holds TWENTY THREE wins over him, and we're acting like it's no big deal. Give me a break.