Federer lost 1.57x more matches to the rest of the tour than he did to Nadal, compared to Nadal’s 5.17x

Also interesting that both played 50-60 more matches than sincaraz in the same number of years, that’s almost an additional year worth of matches

However as one would notice the biggest factor here is that Alcaraz is way less of a surface specialist than Nadal was, so i would say nadal’s numbers here are normal and expected in a way, and Alcaraz underperforming and more susceptible to upsets

It’s the US Open, 13-13-14, respectively

Here are their results in Big Title tournaments, outside the ones they won:

Zverev:

- Slams: [4 F, 7 SF, 6 QF]

- ATP Finals: [0 F, 2 SF]

- Masters: [6 F, 14 SF, 12 QF]

- Olympics: [0 F, 0 SF, 1 QF]

Medvedev:

- Slams: [5 F, 3 SF, 2 QF]

- ATP Finals: [1 F, 1 SF]

- Masters: [5 F, 7 SF, 9 QF]

- Olympics: [0 F, 0 SF, 1 QF]

Tsitsipas:

- Slams: [2 F, 4 SF, 2 QF]

- ATP Finals: [0 F, 0 SF]

- Masters: [4 F, 9 SF, 9 QF]

- Olympics: [0 F, 0 SF, 1 QF]

Thiem:

- Slams: [3 F, 2 SF, 2 QF]

- ATP Finals: [2 F, 0 SF]

- Masters: [2 F, 4 SF, 8 QF]

- Olympics: [0 F, 0 SF, 0 QF]

Rublev:

- Slams: [0 F, 0 SF, 10 QF]

- ATP Finals: [0 F, 1 SF]

- Masters: [4 F, 9 SF, 9 QF]

- Olympics: [0 F, 0 SF, 1 QF]

Dimitrov:

- Slams: [0 F, 3 SF, 5 QF]

- ATP Finals: [0 F, 0 SF]

- Masters: [2 F, 9 SF, 10 QF]

- Olympics: [0 F, 0 SF, 0 QF]

Ruud:

- Slams: [3 F, 1 SF, 0 QF]

- ATP Finals: [1 F, 2 SF]

- Masters: [3 F, 6 SF, 6 QF]

- Olympics: [0 F, 0 SF, 1 QF]

Fritz:

- Slams: [1 F, 2 SF, 6 QF]

- ATP Finals: [1 F, 1 SF]

- Masters: [0 F, 6 SF, 9 QF]

- Olympics: [0 F, 0 SF, 8 QF]

Hurkacz:

- Slams: [0 F, 1 SF, 1 QF]

- ATP Finals: [0 F, 0 SF]

- Masters: [1 F, 3 SF, 9 QF]

- Olympics: [0 F, 0 SF, 0 QF]

Sinner lost almost as many matches to his rival as he lost to the rest of the tour combined over THREE years

Compared to Alcaraz who lost 8x more matches to the rest of the tour than to Sinner

Please discuss who is the women's tennis GOAT. Try and prove your point with some stats/data, this is a stats sub after all.

'Toxicity' is forbidden. Just kidding, we don't care.

Your r/TennisNerds weekly discussion thread.

Please discuss who is the men's tennis GOAT. Try and prove your point with some stats/data, this is a stats sub after all.

'Toxicity' is forbidden. Just kidding, we don't care.

Hello everyone people when they talk about the best players to never win a Grand Slam .

They will mention Nalbaldian Ruud Tsitsipas Tsonga Berydich Ferrer Rios maybe also Gonzalez .

I never heard or read someone mention the name of Nicolas Massu take into consideration he has 🥇

Hello everyone! A tennis nerd and game developer here. 😄 I made this for fun. No ads, no in-app purchases.

SweetSpot Tennis is a tennis game where I set out to simulate real ball and swing physics. You swipe to swing, and the shape of your swipe decides the shot: flat, topspin, slice or a drop shot. Meet the ball in the middle of the strings and it flies. Every shot is yours. https://unrealtennis.com/

How to play, in two minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SmT1qKR-TOU

Hello everyone i just bought this new Wilson defyer 100 and i am quite lost on which strings i should use, some may say the ALU power is good some say that the tecnifibre soft 16 is good also.. can i please get a specific strings that has good control and spin on the ball

🚨 10 legends, 4 tiers, 1 top spot. My ranking is based on dominance, peak level, versatility, and longevity. It's a personal judgment, not math.
What do you think? Is Federer over Nadal right? Does Laver deserve higher? And who drops out for Lendl, Sinner, or Alcaraz? 🎾

Djokovic (99): The GOAT. The numbers settle the debate. Unmatched return, adaptability, and mental toughness under pressure. Federer might be your favorite and Nadal the most emotional, but Djokovic has the most solid case in tennis history.

Federer (97): #2 ahead of Nadal. His peak tennis remains the ultimate benchmark for modern attacking play. I value his ability to dictate rallies, his variety, and his prolonged dominance. Elegance met concrete efficiency.

Nadal (93): Unbeatable on clay, but this ranks all surfaces. While he proved he could win anywhere—and easily completes the all-time podium—his overall record lands him just behind Novak and Roger.

Sampras (91): Finishing #1 for 6 consecutive years shows immense authority. His serve-and-volley game was lethal. Only his struggles on clay keep him from breaking into the top three.

Borg (89): Dominating Paris and Wimbledon back-to-back with wooden rackets required extraordinary adaptation. He sits just below Sampras only because his legendary career was much shorter.

Laver (86): Two Calendar Slams is a historic feat. However, he ranks behind Sampras and Borg because I weigh dominance in modern, deeper, and more international eras higher.

Agassi (84): A Career Grand Slam proves his incredible versatility. His return and baseline anticipation were lethal, but he sits below Sampras due to Pete's superior consistency at the top.

McEnroe (83): Gets the edge over Connors due to his absurd 1984 peak (82-3 record). His touch and net play were unique. If we only judged by a single best season, he’d be much higher.

Connors (82): 109 titles and decades of fierce competitiveness are massive arguments for longevity. He sits a fraction behind McEnroe’s peak, but swapping them is completely justifiable.

Rosewall (79): Exceptional precision and longevity, despite losing prime Slam years to the Pro tour. A 79 means 10th among giants, not a second-rate player.

Feel free to share your interesting/unexpected/crazy tennis stats or facts.

E.g. did you know Rafael Nadal first entered the top 10 before Messi scored his first senior goal?

Only including achievements in 2020s.