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

[Pheasant]

Borg is a question mark also.

Is Novak Djokovic really greater than him on grass?

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.

 

[Sport]

2- Nadal has the olympics but Djokovic has multiple WTF titles. No comparison here. Djokovic > Nadal.

6. Team competitions now? Lol.
7. This is the difference between you and me, for you it's as simple as 1>0, for me, hell no. I do consider Djokovic a better USO player than Nadal.

35 Masters 1000 > 34 Masters 1000. Nadal > Djokovic. Number of titles > distribution. Agassi won 8 Slams including the Career Grand Slam, Borg won 11 Slams and 0 of them on hard, yet Borg is better than Agassi.

The Olympics are played every four years. Therefore, a player only can participate 4 times at most at the Olympics, while he can participate 15 or 16 times in the ATP finals. So it is incorrect to assume that the bigger number of ATP finals surpasses the Olympic Gold in singles, since you are ignoring the lesser number of editions of the ATP finals. Nadal = Djokovic.

I counted matches IN SINGLES in the Davis Cup. Nadal has an impressive 96% winning percentage and 29-1 in matches in singles in the Davis Cup. Djokovic only has an 82% (34-7) winning percentage IN SINGLES in the Davis Cup. The fact that Nadal has 5 DC and Djokovic only 1 DC has a lot to do with Nadal performing much better in singles. You can't simply ignore Nadal's much better performances in singles at the DC only because it doesn't suit the comparison with Djokovic. 96% > 82%. Nadal > Djokovic.

Because you are so unobjective that you say that 0 >1. No way is Djokovic a better USO player than Nadal with less USO titles and a losing H2H against Nadal at the event. Only reading this I know how unobjective you are. Nadal > Djokovic.


By the way, being better in 2 of 3 surfaces is not equal to being better overall, with that logic you are excluding Nadal's achievements in 2 of 3 (67%) of the surfaces. Nadal has 7 Slams outside clay, but because Djokovic has more Slams outside clay, suddenly Nadal's 7 Slams on clay do not add to his resume. You are considering only Nadal's achievements on clay (12 RG), but completely forgetting addding to those 12 RG titles his 7 Slams outside clay. If we consider 100% of the surfaces, Nadal has 19 Slams and Djokovic 17. 19 > 17. Nadal > Djokovic. The same applies to the Sampras-Nadal comaprison. Sampras is greater in 2 of 3 surfaces, and it doesn't mean he is better overall than Nadal because 19 > 14.

75% of Grand Slams are outside clay, so Djokovic really have no excuses to be behind Nadal in the Slam race.

 

[Alfred Chicken]

Sir Lew-zealot, our imperial knight of the holy forum empire, clad in shining fibonacci numbers, trying to dominate the colloquy of worms out of the milk-toast missionary position on his Grail quest for the golden argument section...

 

[RF-18]

Borg is a question mark also.

Is Novak Djokovic really greater than him on grass?

Agreed. I didn't take notice to that. But yea I wouldn't say Novak is greater on grass yet. They are tied, but Borg has a bigger argument for his dominance there when he won 5 in a row.

 

[NoleFam]

Agreed. I didn't take notice to that. But yea I wouldn't say Novak is greater on grass yet. They are tied, but Borg has a bigger argument for his dominance there when he won 5 in a row.

I wouldn't say Djokovic is greater or Borg is greater really, however, this is a time when the dominance versus consistency argument can be used against certain posters. I remember when Federer and Djokovic were tied with 6 AOs each some argued Federer was greater because of his more deep runs regardless of Djokovic's dominance. Well Djokovic has 3 more SFs so does this make him greater?

 

[KINGROGER]

?

Federer has 12 more titles on HC. He is superior until Djokovic either matches his title count or wins another slam.

 

[NoleFam]

Federer has 12 more titles on HC. He is superior until Djokovic either matches his title count or wins another slam.

Smaller tournaments don't matter that much in this argument. Federer has eleven 250s on hardcourt with 3 top 10 wins. Djokovic has four 250s with 4 top 10 wins. At the end of the day, the bigger titles weigh more because most of the time you are playing the best players.

 

[daggerman]

How is Djokovic greater than Federer on HC?

Oh, yeah, h2h. Roddick and Kyrgios say hi.

I would gladly welcome a world where Kyrgios took tennis seriously enough to hold a H2H edge on Djokovic in 40+ matches.

But as things stand now, he and his 2-match sample size have no say in the matter.

 

[KINGROGER]

Smaller tournaments don't matter that much in this argument. Federer has eleven 250s on hardcourt with 3 top 10 wins. Djokovic has four 250s with 4 top 10 wins. At the end of the day, the bigger titles weigh more because most of the time you are playing the best players.

Federer’s 18? Combined basel and Dubai titles (+ YEC) offset Nole’s extra Paris, Canada and Miami titles. The slam finals don’t make much difference it’s only 2 isn’t it?

One needs to have an extra slam to be considered better imo

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Djokovic isn't even better than Federer on hard yet, both are tied with 11 Slams on hard.

But even if/when Djokovic wins another Slam on hard, he will only be the greatest in 1 surface out of 3: hard courts. Federer and Sampras will have a better resume than him on grass, unless he wins 4 extra Wimbledon titles.

And if Djokovic only adds AO titles from now on, he would be a "weak hard court GOAT", since many players like Connors, Sampras, Federer and Nadal have won more USO titles than him.

Nadal will be a 'weak GOAT' for winning 12+ RG's by your logic

 

[NoleFam]

Federer’s 18? Combined basel and Dubai titles (+ YEC) offset Nole’s extra Paris, Canada and Miami titles. The slam finals don’t make much difference it’s only 2 isn’t it?

One needs to have an extra slam to be considered better imo

Djokovic has eighteen 250 and 500 tournament wins, and beat 19 top 10 players to win them. Federer has won thirty-two 250 and 500 tournaments and beat 20 top 10 players to win them. In all hardcourt tournaments won, Djokovic beat 115 top 10 players and 60 top 5 players. Federer beat 109 top 10 players and 51 top 5 players. That shows how little smaller tournaments mean in who is the greatest on a surface. Djokovic's concentration in a smaller amount of tournaments is greater.

 

[KINGROGER]

Djokovic has eighteen 250 and 500 tournament wins, and beat 19 top 10 players to win them. Federer has won thirty-two 250 and 500 tournaments and beat 20 top 10 players to win them. In all hardcourt tournaments won, Djokovic beat 115 top 10 players and 60 top 5 players. Federer beat 109 top 10 players and 51 top 5 players. That shows how little smaller tournaments mean in who is the greatest on a surface. Djokovic's concentration in a smaller amount of tournaments is greater.

So Federer has 13 additional smaller titles + YEC. Easily enough to offset some of Nole’s weaker master titles.

He will need a 4th USO to take this.

 

[N01E]

Ignoring Novak- Roger H2H (you're welcome fedfans):

HC:

AO: 8-6 ND
IW: 5-5
Miami: 6-4 ND
Canada: 4-2 ND
Cincy: 7-1 RF
USO: 5-3 RF
Shanghai/Madrid: 4-3 ND
Paris: 5-1 ND
WTF: 6-5 RF

They are tied in slams (you could give Djokovic an advantage because of extra finals, but I don't care that much about those), 4-2 in masters (same as slam, you could give IW to Fedr). And WTF for Fedr. Djokovic is better in 5 tournaments, while fed leads in 3. Then there's the competition and quality of matches, but unless you are Djokovic fan you may want to stay as far from those as possible.

Clay:

MC: 2-0 ND
Madrid/Hamburg: 6-3 RF
Rome: 4-0 ND
RG: 1-1

RF is missing 2 both MC and Rome and is 3 masters behind. Adding extra wins against Nadal (RG included) and the verdict seems obvious to me.

 

[JaoSousa]

Imagine 4, beating Novak for half of em

That looks healthy...

 

[RF-18]

If Djokovic was spamming ATP 500s like Federer has done he'd also win a big amount. That's not what it comes down to in the end. Its the big titles that counts the most where all top players are participating.

 

[KINGROGER]

Ignoring Novak- Roger H2H (you're welcome fedfans):

HC:

AO: 8-6 ND
IW: 5-5
Miami: 6-4 ND
Canada: 4-2 ND
Cincy: 7-1 RF
USO: 5-3 RF
Shanghai/Madrid: 4-3 ND
Paris: 5-1 ND
WTF: 6-5 RF

They are tied in slams (you could give Djokovic an advantage because of extra finals, but I don't care that much about those), 4-2 in masters (same as slam, you could give IW to Fedr). And WTF for Fedr. Djokovic is better in 5 tournaments, while fed leads in 3. Then there's the competition and quality of matches, but unless you are Djokovic fan you may want to stay as far from those as possible.

Clay:

MC: 2-0 ND
Madrid/Hamburg: 6-3 RF
Rome: 4-0 ND
RG: 1-1

RF is missing 2 both MC and Rome and is 3 masters behind. Adding extra wins against Nadal (RG included) and the verdict seems obvious to me.

If you want to go down the competition route then this is game over for Djokovic. It’s not as easy as counting who is better at masters when Fed clearly has a higher level at Shanghai and Madrid indoors. Also Fed has 18 Dubai + basel you haven’t included those for some reason. As well as Nole’s Beijing titles.

 

[Sport]

If Djokovic was spamming ATP 500s like Federer has done he'd also win a big amount. That's not what it comes down to in the end. Its the big titles that counts the most where all top players are participating.

I don't think ATP 500 should be completely ignored. Federer has the all-time record of most ATP 500 and it is indeed a high-quality record. You are right that Masters 1000 are more relevant than ATP 500, but ATP 500 are not completely irrelevant. I mean, an ATP 500 is not the same than an ATP 250, therer is more competition.

 

[JaoSousa]

Grand Slam win percentage (minimum 25 matches per surface):

1) Djokovic #1 hard, #4 grass, #4 clay --> average position #3
2) Borg #2 clay, #2 grass, #6 hard --> average position #3.3
3) Federer #2 hard, #3 grass, #8 clay --> average position #4.3
- gap -
4) Nadal #1 clay, #9 hard, #13 grass --> average position #7.7
5) Connors #5 hard, #10 grass, #10 clay --> average position #8
6) Murray #5 grass, #11 clay, #12 hard --> average position #9.3
7) Lendl #5 hard, #7 clay, #19 grass --> average position #10.3
8) Wilander #3 clay, #14 hard, #16 grass --> average position #11
9) Agassi #7 hard, #15 grass, #17 clay --> average position #13
10) Becker #7 grass, #11 hard, #23 clay --> average position #13.7

But what about the geometric mean that you love so much Lew? If nadal is ahead on clay by a ton, then the rank should be more weighted towards clay right? Guess you forgot...

 

[KINGROGER]

If Djokovic was spamming ATP 500s like Federer has done he'd also win a big amount. That's not what it comes down to in the end. Its the big titles that counts the most where all top players are participating.

Most of Nole’s “big title” advantage comes at Paris masters which is the weakest master title.

you can say for clay because he won 3 different masters and 3 more than Fed but not for HC. They’ve both won all HC big titles but Fed has more Dubai and basel, as well as more surface diversity.

 

[Lew II]

I can accept that Borg is at least on par with Nole on grass.

But Federer is 0-8 against the top2 in hc slams. What kind of GOAT is that? LOL

 

[RF-18]

Most of Nole’s “big title” advantage comes at Paris masters which is the weakest master title.

you can say for clay because he won 3 different masters and 3 more than Fed but not for HC. They’ve both won all HC big titles but Fed has more Dubai and basel, as well as more surface diversity.

Sorry but extra Basel and Dubai titles wont come into play here that tips the favour to Federer. That's pretty insane to even try to argue for that.

 

[NoleFam]

So Federer has 13 additional smaller titles + YEC. Easily enough to offset some of Nole’s weaker master titles.

He will need a 4th USO to take this.

It's actually not. If Djokovic cared about 250s he could easily pad his total as well. Fact is, he's matching Federer with total titles when they were the same age but doing it in bigger tournaments. He has like 13 more Masters titles than Federer had at his age.

I still would say they are about equal going by Slam titles, WTF and Masters but Federer has no legit argument over him on hardcourt at this point.

 

[N01E]

If you want to go down the competition route then this is game over for Djokovic. It’s not as easy as counting who is better at masters when Fed clearly has a higher level at Shanghai and Madrid indoors. Also Fed has 18 Dubai + basel you haven’t included those for some reason. As well as Nole’s Beijing titles.

Wut. Fedr won 1 Shanghai title with Novak in the draw and that was his only decent match the whole tournament. Djokovic wasn't even broken in his 2018 Shanghai run. Both have nice wins against Delpo (2013 clearly better after seeing what he did in the semi). Djokovic also destroyed Murray and Tsonga (after beating Nadal) in his 2015 run. Also defeated peak Murray (second best Shanghai player) in 2012 classic. But beating Gonzalez is pretty cool too I guess.

And I would never offend GOAT players by bringing mickey mouse tournaments into comparison. None of them is going for the record number of titles in those categories, as that's just a waste of their resources.

 

[Sport]

@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.

 

[NoleFam]

Most of Nole’s “big title” advantage comes at Paris masters which is the weakest master title.

you can say for clay because he won 3 different masters and 3 more than Fed but not for HC. They’ve both won all HC big titles but Fed has more Dubai and basel, as well as more surface diversity.

Djokovic is +4 in Paris, +2 in Shanghai, +2 in Canada and +2 in Miami so that's false. Most of Federer's titles where he makes up ground is in Cincy where he is +6 and he has a Madrid Masters title from 2006. Djokovic is more versatile and diverse.

 

[Spencer Gore]

I can accept that Borg is at least on par with Nole on grass.

But Federer is 0-8 against the top2 in hc slams. What kind of GOAT is that? LOL

To be fair, if that is accurate, it's a pretty damning statistic.

 

[Lew II]

To be fair, if that is accurate, it's a pretty damning statistic.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/federer-is-0-7-against-top-2-in-hardcourt-slams.653858/

 

[dr325i]

No he is not. He has 17 Slams, while his biggest opponents have 19 and 20. You can't be the best if you have less Slams than the same opponents that played in your era.

He will be the best once he gets the Slam record. I would even consider him the best if he ties Federer with 20 Slams, considering his advantage in most categories outside Slams over Federer.

Wait a minute. They had a headstart (especially federer 5 years against some bozos) however, when/if NOVAK reaches 21, you will be saying - against post prime Nadal and federer.
make up your mind - is it all about Slams or actually it matters who you played?

also, to your HC against Federer comment - that ship has long sailed for Roger...

 

[Nadalgaenger]

The only question mark is Fed. I wouldn't say Djokovic is ahead on 2 surfaces there yet. Too close to call.

I agree with your statement and need to compliment you on the Avatar pic! That guy is so epic!

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Djokovic greater than Borg on grass???? No I dont think so!!!

I had the same thought. Borg won five straight Wimbledons!

I'd say that Djokovic may be the only player in the Open Era to be top 5 on all three surfaces.
My top 5 on HC:
1. Fed/Nole (tie)
3. Sampras
4. Lendl
5. Agassi

My top 5 on Clay:
1) Nadal
2) Borg
3) Lendl
4) Kuerten
5) Djokovic

My top 5 on Grass:
1) Fed
2) Pete
3) Borg
4) Nole
5) Becker

 

[Sport]

Wait a minute. They had a headstart (especially federer 5 years against some bozos) however, when/if NOVAK reaches 21, you will be saying - against post prime Nadal and federer.
make up your mind - is it all about Slams or actually it matters who you played?

also, to your HC against Federer comment - that ship has long sailed for Roger...

All Slams have the same historial value. Also, how did Nadal have a "headstart" if he played exactly in the same era than Djokovic? When Nadal started to win Slams Djokovic was already on the tour.

 

[Biotic]

Novak is marginally better on clay due to the single fact that Fed has never won Rome.

Fed possibly slightly ahead on HC. I like 6+5 more than 8+3, although Novak is clearly the best ever at AO, Fed tied at USO.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[Mainad]

My top 5 on Clay:
1) Nadal
2) Borg
3) Lendl
4) Kuerten
5) Djokovic

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

 

[NatF]

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

...and three time winner Wilander.

 

[lucky13]

@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.

it is true, but fed doesn't have 3 more HC slams than nole. there are they equal so other things like other big titles, slam finals, w% and h2h play a crucial role. and all this goes to noles advantage.

 

[KINGROGER]

It's actually not. If Djokovic cared about 250s he could easily pad his total as well. Fact is, he's matching Federer with total titles when they were the same age but doing it in bigger tournaments. He has like 13 more Masters titles than Federer had at his age.

I still would say they are about equal going by Slam titles, WTF and Masters but Federer has no legit argument over him on hardcourt at this point.

Federer has 12 more titles. He is slightly ahead, just as Djokovic is slightly ahead on clay due to 3 more titles and winning all the masters.

 

[KINGROGER]

Djokovic is +4 in Paris, +2 in Shanghai, +2 in Canada and +2 in Miami so that's false. Most of Federer's titles where he makes up ground is in Cincy where he is +6 and he has a Madrid Masters title from 2006. Djokovic is more versatile and diverse.

Federer is clearly better at Shanghai despite Djokovic vulturing a few titles there. Paris has been a weak title since around 2005 as well.
LOL at human backboard Djokovic being more diverse than Fed The main guy who has benefitted from homogenised conditions.

 

[KINGROGER]

Sorry but extra Basel and Dubai titles wont come into play here that tips the favour to Federer. That's pretty insane to even try to argue for that.

Well Fed is just as good on slow and fast HCs (8 sunshine double titles + 6 AO) won AO on 2 surfaces as well as faster plexi... won YEC on 3 surfaces. Djokovic won most his titles on the homogenised tour.

If you want to use the laughable “big titles” standard which includes weak Paris masters titles, then basel and Dubai come into play.

 

[KINGROGER]

Wut. Fedr won 1 Shanghai title with Novak in the draw and that was his only decent match the whole tournament. Djokovic wasn't even broken in his 2018 Shanghai run. Both have nice wins against Delpo (2013 clearly better after seeing what he did in the semi). Djokovic also destroyed Murray and Tsonga (after beating Nadal) in his 2015 run. Also defeated peak Murray (second best Shanghai player) in 2012 classic. But beating Gonzalez is pretty cool too I guess.

And I would never offend GOAT players by bringing mickey mouse tournaments into comparison. None of them is going for the record number of titles in those categories, as that's just a waste of their resources.

Lol if Fed brought his best level to Shanghai every time Nole would have 0-1 titles there. He’s done well at vulturing the autumn masters though with barely any competition.

 

[KINGROGER]

I can accept that Borg is at least on par with Nole on grass.

But Federer is 0-8 against the top2 in hc slams. What kind of GOAT is that? LOL

Djokovic Lost 2 slam finals to Murray and 4 matches to Wawrinka LOL

forever the 3rd wheel no matter how many weak slams he piles up vs mugs.

 

[RF-18]

Well Fed is just as good on slow and fast HCs (8 sunshine double titles + 6 AO) won AO on 2 surfaces as well as faster plexi... won YEC on 3 surfaces. Djokovic won most his titles on the homogenised tour.

If you want to use the laughable “big titles” standard which includes weak Paris masters titles, then basel and Dubai come into play.

You have reached a new low.

 

[KINGROGER]

You have reached a new low.

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.

 

[dr325i]

Novak is marginally better on clay due to the single fact that Fed has never won Rome.

Fed possibly slightly ahead on HC. I like 6+5 more than 8+3, although Novak is clearly the best ever at AO, Fed tied at USO.

Interesting times ahead.

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...

 

[dr325i]

Djokovic Lost 2 slam finals to Murray and 4 matches to Wawrinka LOL

forever the 3rd wheel no matter how many weak slams he piles up vs mugs.

He also destroyed Federer in 2008...
Also, that superstar Millman is calling your name...

 

[Sport]

it is true, but fed doesn't have 3 more HC slams than nole. there are they equal so other things like other big titles, slam finals, w% and h2h play a crucial role. and all this goes to noles advantage.

True, but Fed has an extra ATP final and more ATP 500 titles which gives him an advantage, while Djokovic has the H2H, winning percentage and Masters 1000 advantage.

It is too equall to say that Nole is better on hard. 1 more Slam on hard will make Nole the hard court GOAT. Right now, he is hard court co-GAOT with Federer.

 

[Mainad]

Djokovic Lost 2 slam finals to Murray and 4 matches to Wawrinka LOL

forever the 3rd wheel no matter how many weak slams he piles up vs mugs.

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%).

 

[Sport]

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...

Not everythig, Federer has an extra ATP final and the historical record of most ATP 500 titles. It is equal.

 

[dr325i]

All Slams have the same historial value. Also, how did Nadal have a "headstart" if he played exactly in the same era than Djokovic? When Nadal started to win Slams Djokovic was already on the tour.

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

 

[NoleFam]

Federer is clearly better at Shanghai despite Djokovic vulturing a few titles there. Paris has been a weak title since around 2005 as well.
LOL at human backboard Djokovic being more diverse than Fed The main guy who has benefitted from homogenised conditions.

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, and winning Canada in both Toronto and Montreal.

 

[dr325i]

Not everythig, Federer has an extra ATP final and the historical record of most ATP 500 titles. It is equal.

HC slam finals, HC slams H2H, HC H2H, masters titles on HC...
I am sure there is something on Fed’s side as you mentioned...