Djokovic is greater than every ATG on at least 2 surfaces out of 3

[KINGROGER]

How is Federer better when he has half the titles? Is Djokovic better at Wimbledon even though he had 3 less and leads Federer there 3-1? Saying Paris is a weak title is a weak argument. It still usually has a stronger field than Dubai and Basel. Djokovic has the titles to back up his more diversity claim, including winning 8/9 of big hardcourt titles at least 3 times, winning Canada in both Toronto and Montreal.

No prime to prime Federer is 1-0 at Wimbledon. Djokovic has done well following Fed’s decline to be consistent there.
Djokovic plays the same style every tournament. Fed has won playing baseline, all court, S&V, grinding etc. Fed’s 14/15 Dubai titles are better quality than any of Nole’s Paris titles he won vs his pigeons lol.

he even needed a terrible Federer to finally win Cincinnati.

 

[Sport]

Nadal had a headstart at the FO. Novak won his first slam in 2008.
however, my post was more about Federer’s 5-6 year headstart...and only 3 slams ahead.
but once ND catches up you guys pull that 38-yo card...not the first, not the last time

No, he didn't. Novak participated at RG 2005. RG 2005 was the first ever RG Nadal participated in, just like it was Novak's first ever RG participation.

And yes, Novak won his first Slam in 2008, but he could have won his first Major in 2006 aged 19, just like Nadal won his first Slam in 2005 aged 19.

 

[dr325i]

No, he didn't. Novak participated at RG 2005. RG 2005 was the first ever RG Nadal participated in, just like it was Novak's first ever RG participation.

And yes, Novak won his first Slam in 2008, but he could have won his first Major in 2006 aged 19, just like Nadal won his first Slam in 2005 aged 19.

I agree, he could have, but he did not. So, Nadal started in 2005 and Novak in 2008. Federer also could have had a 5-year headstart on Nadal but he did not.

 

[dr325i]

No prime to prime Federer is 1-0 at Wimbledon. Djokovic has done well following Fed’s decline to be consistent there.
Djokovic plays the same style every tournament. Fed has won playing baseline, all court, S&V, grinding etc. Fed’s 14/15 Dubai titles are better quality than any of Nole’s Paris titles he won vs his pigeons lol.

he even needed a terrible Federer to finally win Cincinnati.

Oh god, here we go with the “prime” crap.
you have no idea what “prime” means for either one of them...

 

[NoleFam]

No prime to prime Federer is 1-0 at Wimbledon. Djokovic has done well following Fed’s decline to be consistent there.
Djokovic plays the same style every tournament. Fed has won playing baseline, all court, S&V, grinding etc. Fed’s 14/15 Dubai titles are better quality than any of Nole’s Paris titles he won vs his pigeons lol.

he even needed a terrible Federer to finally win Cincinnati.

Oh so now Federer was in his prime in 2012...I see. And that same style Djokovic plays is enough to win more big hardcourt titles than Federer in a shorter amount of time since his baseline style is what brings rewards on hardcourt. See Agassi. Sorry but saying Federer has a more diverse repertoire on hardcourt without showing any haed proof is just hot air, especially when Djokovic spread across all 9 big hardcourt tournaments is more impressive.

 

[KINGROGER]

Oh so now Federer was in his prime in 2012...I see. And that same style Djokovic plays is enough to win more big hardcourt titles than Federer in a shorter amount of time since his baseline style is what brings rewards on hardcourt. See Agassi. Sorry but saying Federer has a more diverse repertoire on hardcourt without showing any haed proof is just hot air, especially when Djokovic spread across all 9 big hardcourt tournaments is more impressive.

Federer won some USO on a fast surface (Pre 2010/2011), fast AO in 2017 when they sped it up, fast YEC at Houston and shanghai (Nole has 1 at Shanghai), Madrid indoors, most titles ever at basel and Dubai, plenty of Slow HC titles too. 3 AO on rebound ace.

sorry but Djokovic needs another HC slam to surpass fed but he will never have his variety. See above.

 

[RF-18]

Says the ”peak aged 33” troll. Lmao.

good job at proving you have no comeback. Don’t worry, Nole will probably win another weak HC slam vs a mental midget playing boring backboard tennis and he will then clearly be the most accomplished HC player.

No comeback needed when you are projecting for Federer and deciding what is slow and what is not to suit your agenda. You have reached new lows beyond beliefs it's hilarious lol. I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

 

[KINGROGER]

No comeback needed when you are projecting for Federer and deciding what is slow and what is not to suit your agenda. You have reached new lows behind beliefs it's hilarious lol. I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

I also prefer facts. 71 titles on HCs >>>>> 59? For Djokovic. Until Djokovic wins another slam he is slightly behind Fed on HCs.

as usual Djokovic fans doing mental gymnastic to deny actual facts. This will come back to bite you.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Federer's slam count and title count is so clearly inflated by the paucity of opposition off of clay from 2003-2006 that's it's pretty difficult to put him at number one on any surface.

 

[Spencer Gore]

In actual fact, Djokovic has faced a higher percentage of top 5 Players in his Slam finals than anybody else:

14 of his 17 Slams came against a top #5 player (82%).
14 out of 19 for Nadal against a top #5 player (74%).
8 out of 20 for Federer against a top #5 player (40%).

Every time you see it, it gets worse.

 

[KINGROGER]

Federer's slam count and title count is so clearly inflated by the paucity of opposition off of clay from 2003-2006 that's it's pretty difficult to put him at number one on any surface.

Pretty similar to Djokovic since 2014 except Djokovic had a 2 year window with zero top competition on any 1 surface. 11/17 weak inflation slams looool.

 

[NatF]

Oh so now Federer was in his prime in 2012...I see. And that same style Djokovic plays is enough to win more big hardcourt titles than Federer in a shorter amount of time since his baseline style is what brings rewards on hardcourt. See Agassi. Sorry but saying Federer has a more diverse repertoire on hardcourt without showing any haed proof is just hot air, especially when Djokovic spread across all 9 big hardcourt tournaments is more impressive.

Well you could argue Fed's more diverse at the HC majors. Djokovic has obviously cleaned up masters on a different level to Fed though, although I do think some of that is down to circumstances.

 

[RF-18]

I also prefer facts. 71 titles on HCs >>>>> 59? For Djokovic. Until Djokovic wins another slam he is slightly behind Fed on HCs.

as usual Djokovic fans doing mental gymnastic to deny actual facts. This will come back to bite you.

Only one doing mental gymnastics here is you. Federer been spamming those 250s and 500s. That's why he has more HC titles. But of course now smaller titles matter. I guess also Connors OE GOAT.

And the thing is, I have Djokovic and Fed pretty equal on hard. You haven't even asked what I think. I said it also when Novak won AO. It's too close to call thats why that additional HC slam is needed to make it clear cut.

 

[KINGROGER]

Only one doing mental gymnastics here is you. Federer been spamming those 250s and 500s. That's why he has more HC titles. But of course now smaller titles matter. I guess also Connors OE GOAT.

And the thing is, I have Djokovic and Fed pretty equal on hard. You haven't even asked what I think. I said it also when Novak won AO. It's too close to call thats why that additional HC slam is needed to make it clear cut.

Yeah I agree there needs to be an extra slam which I think Djokovic will do next year. I personally think 1 YEC + 10 basel/8 Dubai balances out the extra 4-5 masters Djokovic has or whatever it is.

 

[JaoSousa]

@JaoSousa

Number of Slam titles > winning percentage in Slams. By the way, Nadal has an 88% winning percentage in Slam matches and Djokovic an 87% winning percentage in Slam matches.

But anyway, number of Slam titles > winning percentage in Slams.

Consider this example:

Player A:

Paricipates in 10 Slams, loses in the finals in 5 of them, and loses in the SF of the other 5. Slam titles = 0. Winning percentage in Slams = 84%

Player B:

Pariticipates in 10 Slams, wins 3 of them, loses in the second round in 3, and loses in the third round in 4. Slam titles = 3. Winning percentage in Slams = 83%


Player A is worse than player B despite having a greater winning percentage in Slams, because he has 3 less Slams than player B.

Why did you mention me here?

 

[swordtennis]

Damn You gotta get at least 1 of those 8!
If djokovic bags 6 wimbledon titles i will definately declare him medium fast and slow grass GOAT.
Pete and then Fed fast grass.

 

[NoleFam]

Federer won some USO on a fast surface (Pre 2010/2011), fast AO in 2017 when they sped it up, fast YEC at Houston and shanghai (Nole has 1 at Shanghai), Madrid indoors, most titles ever at basel and Dubai, plenty of Slow HC titles too. 3 AO on rebound ace.

sorry but Djokovic needs another HC slam to surpass fed but he will never have his variety. See above.

Djokovic needs another hardcourt Slam to surpass Federer but needs nothing to have more variety since he already has that now. You are just too biased to admit that.

 

[NoleFam]

Well you could argue Fed's more diverse at the HC majors. Djokovic has obviously cleaned up masters on a different level to Fed though, although I do think some of that is down to circumstances.

Yes I would say a bit more in the Slams since he is 5/6 compared to Djokovic's 8/3 but not overall in all big hardcourt tournaments.

 

[KINGROGER]

Djokovic needs another hardcourt Slam to surpass Federer but needs nothing to have more variety since he already has that now. You are just too biased to admit that.

Fed won on more different HC surfaces and speeds so it’s not biased to point that out.

 

[Deleted member 763691]

Rafa is better than Djokovic at the US Open and French Open.
And Rafa has more slams than Djokovic overall too.
Game over, Djokovic LOST

 

[NoleFam]

Well you could argue Fed's more diverse at the HC majors. Djokovic has obviously cleaned up masters on a different level to Fed though, although I do think some of that is down to circumstances.

Yes I would say a bit more in the Slams since he is 5/6 compared to Djokovic's 8/3 but not overall in all big hardcourt tournaments.

 

[Sport]

Well you could argue Fed's more diverse at the HC majors. Djokovic has obviously cleaned up masters on a different level to Fed though, although I do think some of that is down to circumstances.

You are right NatF, that Fed has his Slams on hard more "evenly distributed" (6/5 vs. 8/3). But why is it supposedly better to have it more "evenly distributed"? I see no logical reason to preeer 6/5 over 8/3. With 6/5 you are neither the AO GOAT, nor the undisputable USO GOAT (tied with 3 in the Open Era, less than others in the Amateur Era). With 8 AO you are the undisputable AO GOAT. At most, Federer is co-GOAT at the USO, while Djokovic is the only AO GOAT, he is on a throne of his own standing alone like an imperial King.

8/3 illustrates a bigger dominance in one of the events, while 6/5 exhibits more uniformity but less dominance in one of the events. No reason to prefer one over the other.

 

[Sport]

Yes I would say a bit more in the Slams since he is 5/6 compared to Djokovic's 8/3 but not overall in all big hardcourt tournaments.

See my previous comment on this same issue. I see no logical reason to prefere 6/5 over 8/3 as I explained in my previous message.

 

[NoleFam]

See my previous comment on this same issue. I see no logical reason to prefere 6/5 over 8/3 as I explained in my previous message.

I prefer 8/3 since that means he's outright GOAT. If this was reversed and he had 8/3, with 8 being at the USO, he would be the all time GOAT at the USO, so that tells you how special that number 8 is. I can see the other argument though that having at least 5 at both is a bit more diverse.

 

[Lew II]

In actual fact, Djokovic has faced a higher percentage of top 5 Players in his Slam finals than anybody else:

14 of his 17 Slams came against a top #5 player (82%).
14 out of 19 for Nadal against a top #5 player (74%).
8 out of 20 for Federer against a top #5 player (40%).

Vulturerer.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Nobody but Nadal fans thinks Nadal is a better player than Djokovic though

Nadal has a couple of (clay) slams more, but that's pretty much it. Djokovic has everything else going for him, Rankings, WTFs, Masters, H2H and better overall on 2/3 surfaces.

No, Nadal has nothing over Djoker... except for the fact he has more slams, masters and tournaments won than Djoker. Djoker has more weeks at #1? He does, but has it translated to more slams, masters or tournaments won? No. Nadal has a winning H2H in slams. In fact it's highly debatable whether +3 overall, minus-3 in slams is, in reality, a positive H2H. You're talking plus 3 in slams vs. two Beijings and an ATP cup. Regardless, plus 3 in 55 matches isn't much. Djoker does have the WTFs, the value of which is highly debatable. Nadal has a gold medal. They're tied with 5 YE#1s. All 5 of Nadal's, however, are multi-slam YE#1s, 4 of 5 for Djoker.

Better at 3 of 4 slams or on 2 of 3 surfaces = made up, TTW statistics.

 

[Lew II]

No, Nadal has nothing over Djoker... except for the fact he has more slams, masters and tournaments won than Djoker. Djoker has more weeks at #1? He does, but has it translated to more slams, masters or tournaments won? No. Nadal has a winning H2H in slams. In fact it's highly debatable whether +3 overall, minus-3 in slams is, in reality, a positive H2H. You're talking plus 3 in slams vs. two Beijings and an ATP cup. Regardless, plus 3 in 55 matches isn't much. Djoker does have the WTFs, the value of which are highly debatable. Nadal has a gold medal. They're tied with 5 YE#1s. All 5 of Nadal's, however, are multi-slam YE#1s, 4 of 5 for Djoker.

Better at 3 of 4 slams or on 2 of 3 surfaces = made up, TTW statistics.

The stats that matter in tennis are slam titles, weeks at #1, other big titles, and h2h.

Djokovic leads Nadal in 3/4 metrics. He lacks the biggest one for now (slam titles). In the h2h he is ahead regardless of the 6-9 in slams because he played him tons of times on clay. With the adjusted h2h system from UTS, which is great in my opinion, Djokovic leads 30.1 to 24.9.

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Rafael Nadal vs Novak Djokovic

Rafael Nadal vs Novak Djokovic at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

 

[NatF]

You are right NatF, that Fed has his Slams on hard more "evenly distributed" (6/5 vs. 8/3). But why is it supposedly better to have it more "evenly distributed"? I see no logical reason to preeer 6/5 over 8/3. With 6/5 you are neither the AO GOAT, nor the undisputable USO GOAT (tied with 3 in the Open Era, less than others in the Amateur Era). With 8 AO you are the undisputable AO GOAT. At most, Federer is co-GOAT at the USO, while Djokovic is the only AO GOAT, he is on a throne of his own standing alone like an imperial King.

8/3 illustrates a bigger dominance in one of the events, while 6/5 exhibits more uniformity but less dominance in one of the events. No reason to prefer one over the other.

Didn't say either was better just pointing out an argument for diversity in Fed's favour - Djokovic obviously has arguments as well.

 

[Sport]

The stats that matter in tennis are slam titles, weeks at #1, other big titles, and h2h.

Djokovic leads Nadal in 3/4 metrics. He lacks the biggest one for now (slam titles). In the h2h he is ahead regardless of the 6-9 in slams because he played him tons of times on clay. With the adjusted h2h system from UTS, which is great in my opinion, Djokovic leads 30.1 to 24.9.

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Rafael Nadal vs Novak Djokovic

Rafael Nadal vs Novak Djokovic at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

There is no much thing as "adjusted H2H". The official and real H2H is what you see in the ATP page. UTS is a webpage made by tennis fans, not an official authority in tennis.

Credit to Novak for leasing Rafa 27-24 overall, and credit to Nadal for leading Djokovic 9-6 in Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open).

 

[Antonio Puente]

The stats that matter in tennis are slam titles, weeks at #1, other big titles, and h2h.

No doubt, they were throwing the classic 'big titles' statistic around in the 50's.

Also, you say that as if the categories you give are equal. Hardly. It's slams and anything else a distant second, and generally speaking, the other categories are tiebreakers.

Further, on TTW, the values or perceived values of statistical categories are generally based on message board politics. You may not realize it now, but if in the future Fed is out of the conversation, the values will shift. You will have different people arguing for different things.

 

[Biotic]

We are talking HC, not USO or AO.
they have exactly the same number of slams, everything else is in favor of Novak on HC and you favor Federer on that surface...
On top of that, some of Fed’s HC slams were won against old Agassi, Baggy, Safin, etc....
Ok...

I wrote "possibly slightly ahead". I do not favor him, I think they are very close. Fed has 1 more WTF, while Djokovic has 3 more M1000. Federer is obviously better on faster surfaces, and vice versa.

Djokovic needs one more Slam to be clearly ahead, I believe that is fair. And he'll get it, I have no doubt.

I won't get into whom they beat to win the title discussion, both of them had hard fought battles and a few easier ones.

 

[Lew II]

There is no much thing as "adjusted H2H". The official and real H2H is what you see in the ATP page.



Cre

H2H need to be analyzed.

Since Nole became the top guy in 2011 Nadal beat Djokovic outside clay (70-75% of the tour) only TWO TIMES in 9 years!

 

[Eren]

But Djokovic has more slam finals, more big titles, higher win percentage and leads the h2h.

This is not what the thread is about. I didn't write he is the greatest on 2 surfaces, I wrote he is greater than each ATG on 2 surfaces.


3 USO titles is not bad at all. Djokovic won at least 3 times every hardcourt big tournament plus the two best 500s Bejing and Dubai. There's no one more complete than him on all types of hardcourt. I don't get your point.

One WTF less which is objectively the third most import HC tournament according to the ATP which awards you with 1500 points if you win it. You should add that (only listing things Djokovic is best at, is ridiculous).

 

[Sport]

H2H need to be analyzed.

Since Nole became the top guy in 2011 Nadal beat Djokovic outside clay (70-75% of the tour) only TWO TIMES in 9 years!

Tennis did not start in 2011. There is no reason to exclude the H2H of Djokovic against Nadal pre-2011, especially when they were same-age. All H2H matches count. That is like saying "Nadal was playing bad in 2015-2016 so the 2015-2016 matches do not count". Of course they count.

Slams won at age 23:

Bjorn Borg 8
Rafael Nadal 6
Pete(r) Sampras 5
Roger Federer 5
Novak Djokovic 2

Djokovic is one of the Tier 1 ATGs who peaked later. Djokovic should have been talented enough to peak sooner. You can't penalize Nadal for having the incredible talent to be a teenager prodigy. The ability to peak soon is a sign of greatness and talent, so there is no reason to ignore certain H2H matches only because they do not suit Djokovic's resume.

 

[Mainad]

Tennis did not start in 2011. There is no reason to exclude the H2H of Djokovic against Nadal pre-2011, especially when they were same-age. All H2H matches count. That is like saying "Nadal was playing bad in 2015-2016 so the 2015-2016 matches do not count". Of course they count.

Slams won at age 23:

Bjorn Borg 8
Rafael Nadal 6
Pete(r) Sampras 5
Roger Federer 5
Novak Djokovic 1

Djokovic is one of the Tier 1 ATGs who peaked later. Djokovic should have been talented enough to peak sooner. You can't penalize Nadal for having the incredible talent to be a teenager prodigy. The ability to peak soon is a sign of greatness and talent, so there is no reason to ignore certain H2H matches only because they do not suit Djokovic's resume.

Make that 2 for Djokovic. He was 23 years and 8 months when he won his 2nd Slam at 2011 AO.

 

[Lew II]

Tennis did not start in 2011. There is no reason to exclude the H2H of Djokovic against Nadal pre-2011, especially when they were same-age. All H2H matches count. That is like saying "Nadal was playing bad in 2015-2016 so the 2015-2016 matches do not count". Of course they count.

Slams won at age 23:

Bjorn Borg 8
Rafael Nadal 6
Pete(r) Sampras 5
Roger Federer 5
Novak Djokovic 1

Djokovic is one of the Tier 1 ATGs who peaked later. Djokovic should have been talented enough to peak sooner. You can't penalize Nadal for having the incredible talent to be a teenager prodigy. The ability to peak soon is a sign of greatness and talent, so there is no reason to ignore certain H2H matches only because they do not suit Djokovic's resume.

Nadal played on clay almost half of his h2h against Nole . Don't you see the advantage he had? Djokovic leading the h2h despite this is fantastic.

 

[Sport]

Nadal played on clay almost half of his h2h against Nole . Don't you see the advantage he had? Djokovic leading the h2h despite this is fantastic.

Clay is a valid surface, and as you already admitted more than half of their matches were outside clay, meaning most of their matches were outside clay.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Djokovic needs one more HC Slam and one more Wimbledon.

 

[Lew II]

Clay is a valid surface, and as you already admitted more than half of their matches were outside clay, meaning most of their matches were outside clay.

Clay is only 25% of slams and 29% of big tournaments. With over 40% of meetings on clay they played way too much there.

 

[Sport]

Clay is only 25% of slams and 29% of big tournaments. With over 40% of meetings on clay they played way too much there.

Yeah, it should be more. Most Slams and most big tournaments are played on hard, Djokovic's favorite surface. So by no means has Nadal had any surface advantage. Quite the opposite.

 

[Sport]

Make that 2 for Djokovic. He was 23 years and 8 months when he won his 2nd Slam at 2011 AO.

Fixed. Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Lew II]

Yeah, it should be more. Most Slams and most big tournaments are played on hard, Djokovic's favorite surface. So by no means has Nadal had any surface advantage. Quite the opposite.

This is how tennis worked when Nadal entered this sport. Nadal chose to be specialist of a minor surface.

 

[duaneeo]

Surfaces Djokovic is superior:

vs Federer - hard/clay

With a win-loss record of 2-4 at the USO during his peak/prime years of 2011 - 2016...with losses to four different players? Not.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Would you rank him with 1 Slam above 2 time Slam winners like Courier and Bruguera?

I'd rank him above Courier and Bruguera but not Wilander.

 

[clout]

Surfaces Djokovic is superior:

vs Connors - hard/grass/clay
vs Borg - hard/grass
vs McEnroe - hard/grass/clay
vs Lendl - hard/grass
vs Wilander - hard/grass
vs Becker - hard/grass/clay
vs Edberg- hard/grass/clay
vs Agassi - hard/grass/clay
vs Sampras - hard/clay
vs Federer - hard/clay
vs Nadal - hard/grass

Borg is better than Nole on grass and clay

 

[tennisaddict]

Surfaces Djokovic is superior:

vs Connors - hard/grass/clay
vs Borg - hard/grass
vs McEnroe - hard/grass/clay
vs Lendl - hard/grass
vs Wilander - hard/grass
vs Becker - hard/grass/clay
vs Edberg- hard/grass/clay
vs Agassi - hard/grass/clay
vs Sampras - hard/clay
vs Federer - hard/clay
vs Nadal - hard/grass

Did you discount Djokovic slams for the weak era ?

 

[KINGROGER]

Vulturerer.

LOL djokovic is the greatest vulture in tennis history. 11/17 slams and counting post Fedal decline.

 

[MichaelNadal]

That looks healthy...

Where are you when I post salads

 

[ForehandRF]

The problem with comparing Fedovic at the masters level is that masters pre 2009 weren't mandatory and pre 2007 finals were BO5.It wasn't unusual for Fed to skip masters, especially in 2004-2006.Djokovic will be greater on the surface anyway when it's all said and done.

 

[CYGS]

No chance in my book. Borg still owns the record with 41 consecutive Wimbledon wins. Fed only bad 40, due to a walkover. Also, Borg also won a Wimbledon without dropping a single set. Borg was extremely dominant on grass. Borg and Fed are the only two win event without dropping a set. They are the only two with 5 straight titles. It’s too bad Borg played his last slam event at age 25. But his dominance will be remembered forever.

Luckily no one reads your book.