Right, Vak did not ever have a winning H2H record against Fed until 2016, when Fed was 34.5 years old, lol. If Fed had retired at 34.3, which is obviously already ancient in tennis, then Vak would forever have a lifetime losing H2H record against Fed.

The fact that Fed kept on going - and even won multiple more GS's after 34 - even if he lost a few more matches against a much younger Vak - all this actually just helps the case for Fed GOAT, and does not diminish it just because an age 29-32 Vak beat an age 34-37 Fed by 3 more matches.

To be fair, many of Fed's early wins against Vak came when Vak was a baby, so Vak fans will say that those shouldn't count either. That's fine, but that just bolsters my point that H2H record is a terrible argument to use.

For those who will still look at this terrible argument anyway, you can at least see the breakdown here:

2006 - Fed 24/25, Vak 19/20 - Fed 2-0
2007 - Fed 25/26, Vak 20/21 - Fed 3-1
2008 - Fed 26/27, Vak 21/22 - Fed 2-1
2009 - Fed 27/28, Vak 22/23 - Vak 3-2
2010 - Fed 28/29, Vak 23/24 - Fed 4-1
2011 - Fed 29/30, Vak 24/25 - Vak 4-1
2012 - Fed 30/31, Vak 25/26 - Vak 3-2
2013 - Fed 31/32, Vak 26/27 - Vak 2-0
2014 - Fed 32/33, Vak 27/28 - Fed 3-2
2015 - Fed 33/34, Vak 28/29 - Vak 5-3
2016 - Fed 34/35, Vak 29/30 - Vak 1-0
2017 - Fed 35/36, Vak 30/31 - Tie 0-0
2018 - Fed 36/37, Vak 31/32 - Vak 2-0

As you can see, Vak didn't start consistently beating Fed until Fed was basically 30. If your big takeaway is that prime Vak was better than 29+ year old Fed, then okay, I agree with that, but obviously that isn't a very good argument for prime Fed vs prime Vak or who is greater overall. Regardless, it should be obvious that H2H record is a pretty silly thing to use.

Right, Grand Slams is the best argument, H2H is a terrible argument. Even in your attempt at parody, your argument fails because you are actually talking about Grand Slams, you're just trying to adjust the number of Grand Slams by the quality of the wins/competition.

If you want to have that argument, that's fine, and people will take you up on it, but it does not refute the point I've been making about H2H records being a terrible thing to go by.

Also, my example was hypothetical and clearly made its point, but your example obviously refers explicitly to the 2 specific players we're discussing, and if that's the case, then your statements about Player A and Player B are patently false.


Oh look, mrno's point has already been refuted.

Also, if mrno is trying to discount Fed's GS's because many of them weren't during Vak's prime, we should note that almost all of Vak's GS's were when Fed was already in his 30's. In fact, other than 1 time, Vak didn't win any GS's at all until after Fed was 29+. Fed has way more GS's against a near-prime Vak than Vak does against a near-prime Fed.

Seems to show that Federer benefited more from playing against a 19,20 and 21 year old Novak than Vak did from playing against an old Fed

False. Even if you take away all of Fed's wins against 19-21 Vak, then Fed still crushed 22+ Vak for several years, and Vak does not take the H2H lead until 2012 when Fed was 30.8 years old. It takes Fed basically turning 30, for Vak to start consistently beating him.

If anything, the above record shows that a near-prime Fed was better H2H than a near-prime Vak. But again, I'm not the one hanging my hat on H2H records, that's the other side. I've already shown how H2H records are a terrible thing to go by.

Novak won h2h 4 out of the next 5 years starting in 2009 (when he was 22 and Fed was 27). He didn't need Fed to turn 30 to start consistently beat him, he just needed to get into his own prime.

Mrno got quiet. Case closed

Patron on fire.

I'm quiet because there hasn't been a good enough argument to warrant a response.

lol at equating Fed facing Safin and co to Vak facing Fed, Nadal and even Murray.

Also rofl at people contributing Vak's success from 2011 onward to Fed getting old rather than the massive improvement he made (mental game and diet and whatever else).

When Olderer wins
Fed fans: oh my, remarkable, at this old age he is still as sharp as ever, what a true GOAT.

When Olderer loses
Fed fans: meh he's old, still GOAT tho

This level of delusion is unmatched by any other sports fans.

FACTS

I stopped reading when you talked **** about Safin. Do you even tennis?

This is either intellectually dishonest or very stupid. Why would anyone make an argument using "4 out of the next 5 years," when that is a time span where the majority of it is from 2011+, when it has already been assumed that Vak was better from 2011+ when Fed was 29/30+? That makes no sense and does not refute my point at all.

As for the 2009-10 part of that time period, Fed beat Vak 6-4 during those years. This invalidates using those years to say that Vak was better H2H, because that's false, Fed was better H2H then.

Which gets back to the point: Vak does not consistently beat Fed until Fed is literally 29/30. That is a factual statement. You can make opinion statements about the reasons for that, and how much of it is Vak entering his prime vs Fed getting old, but that is all speculative - the fact is that it doesn't happen until Fed is literally 29/30.

You can make opinion statements about the reasons all you like. The fact is that Vak did not win more than a single Grand Slam until Fed was 29/30+.

Vak won 1 GS when Fed was in his prime. Fed won multiple GS's when Vak was in his prime. Depending on what you want to count: Fed won 7 GS's when Vak was 22+ including 4 GS's when Vak was 25+.


True. You don't think it's remarkable that a 35/36 year old won 3 Grand Slams at those decrepit-for-tennis ages? I will give Vak a ton of credit if he is winning GS's at 35/36.

False. Almost nobody is saying this. I am definitely not saying this.

True. Obv.

True. You think it's super noteworthy when a 31 year old Vak beats a 37 year old Fed?

True. Vak hasn't overtaken Fed. He may someday, it's possible, but that day has not happened.

The above argument you tried to make is such a fallacy, it's silly that people can even think it. You somehow think that it's contradictory for people to say that (A) when someone very old loses it's not a huge stain against them, and yet (B) when someone very old wins GS's it's still impressive.

Both of those things are obviously true. Anyone laughing at that should really just be laughing at their own poor logic.

And it's not bias for Fed/against Vak, the same things will be true when Vak is super old. For example, take the hyperbolic example of Vak being 50 years old and still playing on the Tour. The #1 player in the world at the time beats him. Is that a huge stain against Vak? Obviously not, that is super meh and to be expected, it does not diminish Vak's previous accomplishments, it's just incredible that Vak is even playing at that age. Now say that Vak somehow wins a GS at 50. Would that be an absurdly amazing accomplishment? Yes, of course! Are those two things contradictory or laughable sentiments? Of course not, they're just the truth!

Damn Patron.

In before VAK HAS WON 3 IN A ROW.

Player A: 17 grand slams
Player B: 20 grand slams
Player A has a 23-15 H2H record against player B.
Player A has played 3 years less than player B.

Who is the greater player?

Player A is on massive amounts of steroids

Obviously Player B. Player A could one day surpass Player B, but that day hasn't happened yet.

Highest peak:

1. 2015 Novak
2. 2011 Novak
3. 2019 Novak

Show your work.

Highest 1-year peak is pretty close, and I'm fine with giving Vak the edge there, but if you're going by peak, then you should also note that Fed has the highest 2-year, 3-year, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc year peak. A 1-year peak is nice and all, but it's pretty meaningless for a GOAT argument when the other guy has every other time period covered from 2+ years on. It just means that Fed had the likely higher overall peak, and Vak had better variance over a 12 month period.

Rod has the best year, 4 slams one year. :Thumb:

From your other post:
2008 - Fed 26/27, Vak 21/22 - Fed 2-1
2009 - Fed 27/28, Vak 22/23 - Vak 3-2
2010 - Fed 28/29, Vak 23/24 - Fed 4-1
2011 - Fed 29/30, Vak 24/25 - Vak 4-1
2012 - Fed 30/31, Vak 25/26 - Vak 3-2
2013 - Fed 31/32, Vak 26/27 - Vak 2-0

So progressively
2008 Fed ahead by 1
2009 Even
2010 Fed ahead by 3
2011 Even
2012 Vak ahead by 1

"Crushed"

Lol.

It should be clear to anyone by now that Djok is the best ever, though Nadal is super super close and is also I guess "unlucky" that one of the 3 surfaces in particular only gets 25% weighting rather than 33%. Absolute peak Nadal vs Djok in a best of 3 matches on the 3 different surfaces would be a super close line imo, like Novak -120 or something.

In 30 Grand Slam Finals, Federer only had to play Nadal or Djokovic in 13 of them, winning 4, though he did also 3-0 Murray if you want to go big 4 so 16/30 against big 4 and running at <50%.

By contrast Nadal has had to play Fed or Djok in 17/25 Finals (and won 10/17).
Djokovic had to play Fed or Nadal in 12/24 Finals (winning 7) but also Murray 7 times (5-2) so 19/24 against big 4 (winning 12/19).

The quality of opposition Fed was beating up on was laughable in comparison. Roddick 4 times lol. Hewitt twice. 35 year old Agassi.

Lol Fed.

Final match ain’t all of it ...
Sometimes the road to the final is harder than the final match itself .
That’s why you should put more weight on title than vs who you played in the finals.

Djok now has the highest Elo ever, correct?

After Vak turned 22, Fed went 6-2 against him over the next couple years, until Vak started catching up. So yes, crushed him. Or if you prefer non-slang usage, clearly beat him H2H for that time period. Here is every single match they played after Vak turned 22:

Winner	Fed	Vak	Tournament
Federer	1	0	Cincinnati Masters
Federer	2	0	US Open
Djokovic	2	1	Swiss Indoors
Federer	3	1	Canadian Open Masters
Djokovic	3	2	US Open
Federer	4	2	Shanghai Masters
Federer	5	2	Swiss Indoors
Federer	6	2	ATP World Tour Finals
Djokovic	6	3	Australian Open
Djokovic	6	4	Dubai Championships
Djokovic	6	5	Indian Wells Masters
Federer	7	5	French Open
Djokovic	7	6	US Open
Djokovic	7	7	Italian Open Masters
Djokovic	7	8	French Open
Federer	8	8	Wimbledon
Federer	9	8	Cincinnati Masters
Djokovic	9	9	ATP World Tour Finals
Djokovic	9	10	Paris Masters
Djokovic	9	11	ATP World Tour
Federer	10	11	Dubai Championships
Djokovic	10	12	Indian Wells Masters
Federer	11	12	Monte-Carlo Masters
Djokovic	11	13	Wimbledon
Federer	12	13	Shanghai Masters
Federer	13	13	Dubai Championships
Djokovic	13	14	Indian Wells Masters
Djokovic	13	15	Italian Open Masters
Djokovic	13	16	Wimbledon
Federer	14	16	Cincinnati Masters
Djokovic	14	17	US Open
Federer	15	17	ATP World Tour Finals
Djokovic	15	18	ATP World Tour Final
Djokovic	15	19	Australian Open
Djokovic	15	20	Cincinnati Masters
Djokovic	15	21	Paris Masters

As you can see, Fed clearly beat Vak over the next 8 tournaments after Vak turned 22, and Vak did not take the H2H lead until the 15th tournament at the 2012 French Open when Fed was 30 years and 10 months old. After that, they go back and forth for a while, and Vak does not take the lead for good until the 2015 Indian Wells Masters when Fed was 33 years and 7 months old. They are tied at 13-13 for the time period where Vak is 22y3m-27y10m and Fed is 28y0m-33y7m, a time period which clearly benefits Vak. When both players are near their prime, Fed clearly beats Vak H2H.

(Note that all of those statements do not include the first 11 tournaments they ever played, before Vak turned 22, in which Fed leads 7-4. If including those, Vak does not ever take the H2H lead until the 2016 Australian Open when Fed was 34 years and 5 months old.)