PDA

View Full Version : Has anybody noticed that Djokovic COULD retire with a leading H2H against FEDAL?!?!?!


Mike Sams
12-01-2011, 11:43 PM
Djokovic (10 wins) vs Federer (14 wins)

Djokovic (13 wins) vs Nadal (16 wins)

With the way things are looking and if Djokovic continues to play at a good to great level for the next season or two, he basically could have bragging rights against the legendary Federer and Nadal when it comes to the head to head!
The fact that two legends in our sport both were on the losing end of the head 2 head against another multi-Slam winner could in itself make Djokovic a legend in the sport when all is said and done.
Even if he doesn't win double-digit Slams, his record of success against the legendary Rafael Nadal and one of the greatest in history Roger Federer will alone be a telling stat on the superior talent of Djokovic when the history books are written!
Basically Djokovic without winning as many Slams as the two legends could still seal his own legacy by his superior record against the both of them. And he's still adding to his trophy cabinet as we speak.
No other player out there has listed as many wins against BOTH legends as Djokovic and chances are, by the time 2013 rolls around, Djokovic MAY be the leader in the H2H against both legends!:shock:

aphex
12-02-2011, 12:02 AM
That's why Dominik Hrbaty is the GOAT.

Mike Sams
12-02-2011, 12:08 AM
That's why Dominik Hrbaty is the GOAT.

Was Hrbaty ever ranked #1, ever beat Federer and Nadal in the Slams, ever won a Masters singles, or ever won a Slam himself though?

aphex
12-02-2011, 12:10 AM
Was Hrbaty ever ranked #1, ever beat Federer and Nadal in the Slams, ever won a Masters singles, or ever won a Slam himself though?

Doesn't matter. All that matters is that he has a positive H2H over Fedal.

Mike Sams
12-02-2011, 12:21 AM
Doesn't matter. All that matters is that he has a positive H2H over Fedal.

It does matter :lol:
Djokovic's achievements are significant because he's been #1 during the Fedal era, he's won Grand Slams against Fedal, and he's won Masters against Fedal. Basically Djokovic has achieved almost everything there is to achieve other than winning Roland Garros. Icing on the cake would be winning the head 2 head against both Federer and Nadal.:)

ThoughtCrime
12-02-2011, 12:26 AM
It does matter :lol:
Djokovic's achievements are significant because he's been #1 during the Fedal era, he's won Grand Slams against Fedal, and he's won Masters against Fedal. Basically Djokovic has achieved almost everything there is to achieve other than winning Roland Garros. Icing on the cake would be winning the head 2 head against both Federer and Nadal.:)

He's trolling man, why bother replying.

Mike Sams
12-02-2011, 12:30 AM
He's trolling man, why bother replying.

Fed fan eh? :lol:

Andres
12-02-2011, 12:50 AM
Was Hrbaty ever ranked #1, ever beat Federer and Nadal in the Slams, ever won a Masters singles, or ever won a Slam himself though?
Does Djokovic have a positive H2H against any of them?

No.

Revive this thread in a few years when they're all retired.

Colin
12-02-2011, 01:13 AM
Federer is going to keep playing for years, I think, from the way he's spoken highly of players who kept going strong in their 30s and competed against multiple generations, such as Agassi did. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that some younger players will be able to turn the tide on the head-to-head even if he plays at a high yet gradually devolving level. The early numbers already skew the brilliance of Fed's peak performance, and so will the statistics of his twilight.

Djokovic is in a good position to do this, even if Fed is able to win a third of the matches in the near future because they'll keep competing against each other in semis and perhaps finals. Nadal has the potential to see his fortunes reverse more quickly since he was helpless last year against Djokovic and he's likely to face him again this year, especially on the slow spring hard courts and the clay courts that follow, unless Nadal loses early — and all of that could push him toward an early retirement, but perhaps not early enough to see Djokovic take the lead in that H2H.

However it goes down, I don't think Fed cares too much about the H2H or the stats against Djokovic. He's proved what he needs to in the prime of his career — hitherto unseen, henceforth unrivaled.

Now, Fed just cares about tennis and being able to play the game he loves.

TheMusicLover
12-02-2011, 05:02 AM
How about awaiting first how Djoko will be doing the upcoming season before making outragious claims?

Oh wait... TROLLOLLOLLOL... :D

DjokovicForTheWin
12-02-2011, 05:21 AM
Doesn't matter. All that matters is that he has a positive H2H over Fedal.

It does matter :lol:
Djokovic's achievements are significant because he's been #1 during the Fedal era, he's won Grand Slams against Fedal, and he's won Masters against Fedal. Basically Djokovic has achieved almost everything there is to achieve other than winning Roland Garros. Icing on the cake would be winning the head 2 head against both Federer and Nadal.:)

It does matter, but it's the opposite. It's worse if you have a losing H2H who has no achievements.

Gorecki
12-02-2011, 05:43 AM
It does matter :lol:
Djokovic's achievements are significant because he's been #1 during the Fedal era, he's won Grand Slams against Fedal, and he's won Masters against Fedal. Basically Djokovic has achieved almost everything there is to achieve other than winning Roland Garros. Icing on the cake would be winning the head 2 head against both Federer and Nadal.:)

http://www.dominikhrbaty.com/images/hrbaty.jpg

NO. he won 4 slams and that is all he did achievement wise but not all there is to achieve! but what matters is H2H, and that is why Davidenko is better than Nadal and Hrbaty is GOAT.

joeri888
12-02-2011, 05:49 AM
Who cares. Djokovic will prime against Nadal and Federer, while especially Federer would have Djokovic for breakfast everyday of the week during 2004-2006, but they didn't play.

It's another example of how H2H can help you predict the outcome of a match, but very little on whether a player is better than another.

Tammo
12-02-2011, 05:52 AM
I very highly doubt that this will happen. Even if he plays Fed 4 more time winning all of them would be difficult. Against Nadal I always think Nadal will get more wins than loses against him.

Sentinel
12-02-2011, 05:54 AM
Anyone notice that Rafa could retire today, with a winning H2h against Roger. Wouldn't that go great !

It does matter, but it's the opposite. It's worse if you have a losing H2H who has no achievements.
Excellent, DFTW ! You are beating even the Great Zagor ! Even Petey lost to one Leander Paes.

rdis10093
12-02-2011, 05:54 AM
fed and nadal will not let there h2h die against novak.

Mike Sams
12-02-2011, 07:37 AM
fed and nadal will not let there h2h die against novak.

They have no say in it. If Djokovic is simply better than them...well...then that's how it will be. Federer is 1-4 against Djokovic this year. Nadal is 0-6.

Towser83
12-02-2011, 07:40 AM
Well nadal was better than Federer because o his leading H2H, so makes sense that Djokovic is better than both if he has a leading H2H. Perfect sense... :lol:

colonelforbin
12-02-2011, 08:33 AM
If Djokovic achieves a winning H2H against Fedal he is the GOAT, which means Federer has more slams than the GOAT, which makes Federer the GOAT, but Djokovic went 10-1 against GOAT-Nadal in 2011, which makes him the GOAT again, which means Federer tweener-passed the GOAT in the 2009 US Open semis, which makes him a genius...

FlashFlare11
12-02-2011, 08:42 AM
If Federer continues to play, I think it would be an even bigger detriment to Novak's career if he can't overturn the head-to-head against Roger. The younger players should have an advantage over the older, and the Federer-Djokovic rivalry should be no different. Does anyone bring up the Agassi-Nadal head-to-head? No, because we know that Nadal's wins over Agassi were when he was way past his prime. The same can be said about this one.

TMF
12-02-2011, 09:08 AM
It does matter, but it's the opposite. It's worse if you have a losing H2H who has no achievements.

Davydenko is leading h2h against Nadal, for example?

luvly
12-02-2011, 10:13 AM
Anyone notice that Rafa could retire today, with a winning H2h against Roger. Wouldn't that go great !


Excellent, DFTW ! You are beating even the Great Zagor ! Even Petey lost to one Leander Paes.


Totally off topic love your siggy lol

; )

kishnabe
12-02-2011, 10:34 AM
It doesn't matter if Djokovic ever leads h2h!

16>10>4!

mellowyellow
12-02-2011, 01:09 PM
They have to make the spots in the draw to play each other, and as Fedal gets older the less likely that is to happen. It may happen, but I wouldn't count on playing Nadal 6 times in finals this year.

sureshs
12-02-2011, 01:31 PM
I could also retire with an even unbeaten 0-0 H2H against Fedalovic

aphex
12-02-2011, 01:54 PM
I could also retire with an even unbeaten 0-0 H2H against Fedalovic

Yeah, we know you're "special".

tusharlovesrafa
12-02-2011, 08:44 PM
Yeah, we know you're "special".

Yeah,I know you're "special"

OddJack
12-02-2011, 08:49 PM
Fed not likely, Nadal very likely.

NadalAgassi
12-02-2011, 09:02 PM
Well nadal was better than Federer because o his leading H2H, so makes sense that Djokovic is better than both if he has a leading H2H. Perfect sense... :lol:

Nobody has seriously suggested Nadal is already greater than Federer since he leads the H2H. The only issue is the denial of Federer fans that Nadal does dominate Federer in the H2H aspect, which is basically as blind as if a Nadal fan were to deny Djokovic's dominance of Nadal in 2011. Some have brought up too that being dominated by the 2nd best player of your era is a negative for Federer in GOAT debates considering Sampras, Laver, Borg, and other GOAT contenders were never dominated in such a way by anyone, let alone a main rival. Which is a valid point.

NadalAgassi
12-02-2011, 09:04 PM
As for the thread title I think Djokovic will probably end up with a winning head to head over both. He is only getting better, Federer is going into his 30s and not going to miracelously improve at that point, and Nadal seems to be struggling to avoid a serious decline at this point.

Towser83
12-02-2011, 09:43 PM
Nobody has seriously suggested Nadal is already greater than Federer since he leads the H2H. The only issue is the denial of Federer fans that Nadal does dominate Federer in the H2H aspect, which is basically as blind as if a Nadal fan were to deny Djokovic's dominance of Nadal in 2011. Some have brought up too that being dominated by the 2nd best player of your era is a negative for Federer in GOAT debates considering Sampras, Laver, Borg, and other GOAT contenders were never dominated in such a way by anyone, let alone a main rival. Which is a valid point.

Well you've had guys like Murray say Nadal is the GOAT with his H2H over Federer (which doesn't make a lot of sense since if Federer is not the GOAT, simply having a winning H2H over him doesn't mean as much, he'd have to be proven to be the 2nd best of all time, or the best until Nadal and if you're ruling out slam wins as the measuring stick, then it becomes so based on opinion, it's not woth debating - I don't actually like the term GOAT because of it's subjectivity...anyway) though that was probably cos Murray dislikes Federer and vice versa.

With the other stuff, yeah it is a point of contention, but Nadal is quite a special case. He can obviously play pretty well on every surface (especially with surfaces becoming more alike) meaning he's not going to be a pushover anywhere, but he's so good on clay that trying to beat him there is always going to impact your H2H. Sampras had several tough clay courters but none that were virtually unbeatable, and even if he had, he wouldn't have played that guy 10+times. Nadal is only equalled or bettered on clay by Borg.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's on clay where a fairly even matchup goes massively in favour of Nadal, which is thanks to him being a rare skill level on that surface. It's hard to equate that to Sampras who never had an unbeatable rival on a surface he was very good at, and certainly Borg since he WAS the guy who was virtually unbeatable on one surface (gotta hand it tohim though he was almost unbeatable at Wimbledon on fast grass too) but there was no rival for him who was a hard court champion, with everyone finding it almost impossible to beat. Let's face it, if Sampras were playing Borg on a regular basis the way Federer has played Nadal, he'd be losing a hell of a lot on clay. I can't see him winning one match. Not only that but grass is not going to be easy. On hardcourt he'd have a winning H2H moreso than Federer over Nadal, but still overall he'd probably be a fair bit behind to Borg. If he were playing Nadal, on clay he loses everytime, on fast grass he wins, on slow grass, much closer, on hardcourt he edges the H2H. Funnily enough, I can't think of one guy who was as dominant on HC as Borg and Nadal were/are on clay.

So I don't think it impacts upon Federer's legacy as much as it would if he plain sucked on clay, Nadal is a rare player. But Obviously nadal has time to prove he is the better player. Ultimately this is down to opinion though, all you can say for sure is Federer has the most slams, Nadal has a better H2H and Laver has the grand slam. Everyone puts a different order of priority on these factors.

TopFH
12-02-2011, 09:54 PM
If Djokovic achieves a winning H2H against Fedal he is the GOAT, which means Federer has more slams than the GOAT, which makes Federer the GOAT, but Djokovic went 10-1 against GOAT-Nadal in 2011, which makes him the GOAT again, which means Federer tweener-passed the GOAT in the 2009 US Open semis, which makes him a genius...

Don't forget that Fed also lob-smashed Nole.

Towser83
12-02-2011, 09:59 PM
Don't forget that Fed also lob-smashed Nole.


Oh yeah in 2008! That's been overshadowed by the hotdog shot

Mike Sams
12-02-2011, 10:16 PM
That's what I was saying. Murray himself said Nadal is the GOAT and deserves to be so because of his superior H2H over Federer. If Murray is saying that H2H should be recognized, then why is this thread not valid if Djokovic dominates the H2H against both Federer and Nadal? Many players seems to put a major emphasis on the H2H including many experts and writers.
They say "Federer has 16 Slams but how can he be GOAT if he can't even dominate somebody in his own era in Nadal?"
And few even point to their Slam count. Federer with 16 Slams, Nadal with 10 Slams but even still they look at the H2H as the deciding factor of why Federer can't be GOAT.
That's why I made this thread. To pinpoint that there is a very very likely possibility that Djokovic with 4 Slams and counting MAY dominate the H2H with Nadal and even despite having fewer Slams, there's no stopping Nadal haters from using the Djokovic domainance as a way to deny Nadal GOAT status.

How can Nadal be the GOAT if despite being in his prime, can't even dominate a multi-Slam winner in his own era? :) There's an argument to be made.

Towser83
12-02-2011, 10:28 PM
That's what I was saying. Murray himself said Nadal is the GOAT and deserves to be so because of his superior H2H over Federer. If Murray is saying that H2H should be recognized, then why is this thread not valid if Djokovic dominates the H2H against both Federer and Nadal? Many players seems to put a major emphasis on the H2H including many experts and writers.
They say "Federer has 16 Slams but how can he be GOAT if he can't even dominate somebody in his own era in Nadal?"
And few even point to their Slam count. Federer with 16 Slams, Nadal with 10 Slams but even still they look at the H2H as the deciding factor of why Federer can't be GOAT.
That's why I made this thread. To pinpoint that there is a very very likely possibility that Djokovic with 4 Slams and counting MAY dominate the H2H with Nadal and even despite having fewer Slams, there's no stopping Nadal haters from using the Djokovic domainance as a way to deny Nadal GOAT status.

How can Nadal be the GOAT if despite being in his prime, can't even dominate a multi-Slam winner in his own era? :) There's an argument to be made.

True. I see your point of course, but I never agreed that Nadal's H2H over Federer made him better. I mean the guy is near unbeatable on clay and an all time great. sampras for instance had a losing H2H to Krajicek. I'd rather be owned on one surface by an all time great than be behind to a one slam wonder who was not unbeatable on any surface.

Speaking of which if Djokovic did open up a big gap over Federer and/or Nadal, in a way it'd be more impressive than Nadal's H2H over Federer, because Djokovic hasn't been near unbeatable on any surface except for this year. I mean you wouldn't say he rules a surface like Nadal rules or ruled clay (at least not yet) so a good player (certainly a Federer or Nadal) should have a fair chance of beating him on a any surface, where as Federer, Djokovic etc were still big underdogs against Nadal on clay.

jokinla
12-02-2011, 10:37 PM
It doesn't matter if Djokovic ever leads h2h!

16>10>4!

But the Djoker fans have to find a way to justify their claim that he is the GOAT. We've heard how he's done almost everything, and now if he has the
h2h, then you can only draw one conclusion.

devila
12-02-2011, 11:57 PM
this is djoker beating federer and nadal. this is unlike the clown dunce andy roddick, who was crap for a decade. roddick still bragged about beating djoker in the 2009 sickly djoker time period.

fed fans are upset because a weak djoker from miami 2009 and 2011 us open embarrassed federer enough to cause federer to throw bottles, pummel the racket and insult djoker about hitting his forehand winner! :oops:
it was amusing when fed called nadal a one dimensional player and then pouted during clay finals during the weak 2005 and 2006 era. almost as bad the 2009 australian open wimpy cry for sympathy.

unlike the fraud federina, nadal and djoker won davis cup when they could've taken vacations to rest for grand slam glory. they won olympic medals while federer was overjoyed with rare doubles tennis success.

ctbmar
12-03-2011, 12:14 AM
Nobody has seriously suggested Nadal is already greater than Federer since he leads the H2H. The only issue is the denial of Federer fans that Nadal does dominate Federer in the H2H aspect, which is basically as blind as if a Nadal fan were to deny Djokovic's dominance of Nadal in 2011. Some have brought up too that being dominated by the 2nd best player of your era is a negative for Federer in GOAT debates considering Sampras, Laver, Borg, and other GOAT contenders were never dominated in such a way by anyone, let alone a main rival. Which is a valid point.

People did not compare a player 5 years younger as a rival before Federer and Nadal. Was Becker (4 yrs older) or Edberg (5 yrs older) considered Sampras' rivals? Even Borg and McEnroe are 3 years difference. Borg and Lendl are 4 years difference. Do you know how much is 5 years age gap translate in the tennis world? It's because Federer is able to maintain his high standards of play even at an old age and Nadal matured very early, so they have this so called rivalry. Every other player in tennis history did not compare with other players who are 5 years older or 5 years younger. To me, we should compare players who are 1 to 2 years difference in age, at most 3 years difference. Any age more than 3 years, that's half a generation difference when they turn pro, technology changes, body aging, etc.

gregor.b
12-03-2011, 12:19 AM
this is djoker beating federer and nadal. this is unlike the clown dunce andy roddick, who was crap for a decade. roddick still bragged about beating djoker in the 2009 sickly djoker time period.

fed fans are upset because a weak djoker from miami 2009 and 2011 us open embarrassed federer enough to cause federer to throw bottles, pummel the racket and insult djoker about hitting his forehand winner! :oops:
it was amusing when fed called nadal a one dimensional player and then pouted during clay finals during the weak 2005 and 2006 era. almost as bad the 2009 australian open wimpy cry for sympathy.

unlike the fraud federina, nadal and djoker won davis cup when they could've taken vacations to rest for grand slam glory. they won olympic medals while federer was overjoyed with rare doubles tennis success.
Seems like you have it all sorted out. Djoker is the G.O.A.T. because you said so.Yay! (it's easier than having facts to back it up)

davced1
12-03-2011, 05:44 AM
But as for now he has a losing record vs. both of the two greats so what does that say about him?

davced1
12-03-2011, 05:50 AM
If Djokovic achieves a winning H2H against Fedal he is the GOAT, which means Federer has more slams than the GOAT, which makes Federer the GOAT, but Djokovic went 10-1 against GOAT-Nadal in 2011, which makes him the GOAT again, which means Federer tweener-passed the GOAT in the 2009 US Open semis, which makes him a genius...

...but they all played in a "weak" era so the GOAT really is Sampras or Borg or Laver or... LOL

nadalwon2012
12-03-2011, 05:54 AM
Djokovic (10 wins) vs Federer (14 wins)

Djokovic (13 wins) vs Nadal (16 wins)

With the way things are looking and if Djokovic continues to play at a good to great level for the next season or two, he basically could have bragging rights against the legendary Federer and Nadal when it comes to the head to head!
The fact that two legends in our sport both were on the losing end of the head 2 head against another multi-Slam winner could in itself make Djokovic a legend in the sport when all is said and done.
Even if he doesn't win double-digit Slams, his record of success against the legendary Rafael Nadal and one of the greatest in history Roger Federer will alone be a telling stat on the superior talent of Djokovic when the history books are written!
Basically Djokovic without winning as many Slams as the two legends could still seal his own legacy by his superior record against the both of them. And he's still adding to his trophy cabinet as we speak.
No other player out there has listed as many wins against BOTH legends as Djokovic and chances are, by the time 2013 rolls around, Djokovic MAY be the leader in the H2H against both legends!:shock:

Federer can't retire with a winning head-to-head vs Nadal. And Federer is the GOAT. So winning head-to-heads over great players count for nothing. Especially hypothetical ones.

jokinla
12-03-2011, 07:36 AM
this is djoker beating federer and nadal. this is unlike the clown dunce andy roddick, who was crap for a decade. roddick still bragged about beating djoker in the 2009 sickly djoker time period.

fed fans are upset because a weak djoker from miami 2009 and 2011 us open embarrassed federer enough to cause federer to throw bottles, pummel the racket and insult djoker about hitting his forehand winner! :oops:
it was amusing when fed called nadal a one dimensional player and then pouted during clay finals during the weak 2005 and 2006 era. almost as bad the 2009 australian open wimpy cry for sympathy.

unlike the fraud federina, nadal and djoker won davis cup when they could've taken vacations to rest for grand slam glory. they won olympic medals while federer was overjoyed with rare doubles tennis success.

Interesting you mention Roddick, because he owns the h2h, has been #1, won a GS, Masters and DC. There you have it, GOAT.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-03-2011, 08:04 AM
Nobody has seriously suggested Nadal is already greater than Federer since he leads the H2H. The only issue is the denial of Federer fans that Nadal does dominate Federer in the H2H aspect, which is basically as blind as if a Nadal fan were to deny Djokovic's dominance of Nadal in 2011. Some have brought up too that being dominated by the 2nd best player of your era is a negative for Federer in GOAT debates considering Sampras, Laver, Borg, and other GOAT contenders were never dominated in such a way by anyone, let alone a main rival. Which is a valid point.

If Sampras, Laver, Borg were not dominated by anyone in that way, doesn't that mean they were in a weak era?

Sentinel
12-03-2011, 08:09 AM
Lest we forget, Nikolai.

tennis_pro
12-03-2011, 08:50 AM
Hrbaty

/thread

Towser83
12-03-2011, 10:01 AM
If Sampras, Laver, Borg were not dominated by anyone in that way, doesn't that mean they were in a weak era?

You raise a good point. because people (even Pat Cash) has said, "how can you be the GOAT when you're not the greatest in your own era?" Of course this ignores the fact that H2H over someone doesn't prove you are greater (do you think Nadal wants to beat Federer more than he wants to win a slam? Would he rather beat Fed in the semis and lose to Djokovic in the final, or not face either and BEAT anyone else in the final?) but also the old argument has been "Federer dominated in a weak era" so if you are the unchallenged best in your era, with a H2H over rivals, what does it matter if someone can argue it was a weak era?