What is more remarkable: Djokovic being clutch or Federer being dominant?

[McEnroeisanartist]

Djokovic had to win a 5-set match before the final in 18 of the 31 Grand Slams that he reached a final at.

Federer had to win just 7 5-set matches before reaching his 31 Grand Slam finals.

What is more remarkable: Djokovic being “clutch” or Federer being dominant?

 

[Krish0608]

Djokovic being both if we are being honest.

 

[ollinger]

What is more remarkable:

Trick question. NEITHER of these banal and largely meaningless observations would be any sensible person's idea of "remarkable"

 

[junior74]

In general, you are more clutch if you win without the need of a fifth.

 

[Strale]

Djokovic had to win a 5-set match before the final in 18 of the 31 Grand Slams that he reached a final at.

Federer had to win just 7 5-set matches before reaching his 31 Grand Slam finals.

What is more remarkable: Djokovic being “clutch” or Federer being dominant?

I can answer that....The 2003-2007 weak era...

 

[Milanez82]

How many 5 setters did either lose
That tells more

 

[socallefty]

What is remarkable is making 31 Grand Slam finals and winning 20 (or 21). They are both amazing players - Federer was better than Novak before 2011 and Novak has been better since. Because of their styles, Federer can blow out more opponents with his big-time serving than Novak can and that’s why Novak plays more 5-setters.

 

[Ducky Lucky]

What does clutch mean in this context?

 

[Sunny014]

Novak gets broken so frequently in slams, it is outright disgusting, he is a weak chump grinder @Strale

Top 50 Slams won with least times broken (in the last 30 years)

Federer : 13 Times
Sampras : 12 Times
Nadal : 10 Times
Djokovic : 4 Times

Why does Djokovic feature so less in the list of top 25 slams won with least times broken?

Rank Country Name Breaks Against Break Points Matches Season Tournament 1 USA Pete Sampras 2 19 7 1997 Wimbledon 2 USA Pete Sampras 3 22 7 1994 Wimbledon 3 SUI Roger Federer 4 12 7 2006 Wimbledon 4 SUI Roger Federer 4 21 7 2017 Wimbledon 5 ESP Rafael Nadal 4 23 7 2013 US Open...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[ibbi]

Honestly, this idea that Federer is not 'clutch' is laughable, and the idea that YOU of all people would be adding to the perpetuation of this juvenile, were you born yesterday, what have you done for me lately stupidity is blowing my mind Imagine winning a hundred titles without being clutch.

 

[Sunny014]

Honestly, this idea that Federer is not 'clutch' is laughable, and the idea that YOU of all people would be adding to the perpetuation of this juvenile, were you born yesterday, what have you done for me lately stupidity is blowing my mind Imagine winning a hundred titles without being clutch.

He is not entirely wrong.... @ibbi

The Federer vs Djokovic debate boils down to whether you prefer a more talented master with less mental toughness or a less talented guy with more mental toughness.

Some people judge humans on what they did with the skills they had, instead of inherited wealth/inherited talent etc etc...... So for such people Novak will be ahead of Federer for sure, otherwise if you think greatness is entitled by birth via certain set of talents that should trump over hardwork/sheer strength of mind then Federer gets the nod ahead of everyone.

Some vote for Nadal too, he is more of an animalish power mixed with determination and somewhat moderate skills..... so there are very rare people who consider him as the GOAT, like @DRII , @Beckerserve etc etc types..... they are a bit in minority.

Earlier it was like 75-85% ..... but now only 55-60% considers Fed the GOAT, 35-40% Novak and 5% Nadal...... Good news for Novak, his stock is rising more while Fed's is dwindling.

 

[ibbi]

He is not entirely wrong.... @ibbi

The Federer vs Djokovic debate boils down to whether you prefer a more talented master with less mental toughness or a less talented guy with more mental toughness.

Some people judge humans on what they did with the skills they had, instead of inherited wealth/inherited talent etc etc...... So for such people Novak will be ahead of Federer for sure, otherwise if you think greatness is entitled by birth via certain set of talents that should trump over hardwork/sheer strength of mind then Federer gets the nod ahead of everyone.

Some vote for Nadal too, he is more of an animalish power mixed with determination and somewhat moderate skills..... so there are very rare people who consider him as the GOAT, like @DRII , @Beckerserve etc etc types..... they are a bit in minority.

Earlier it was like 75-85% ..... but now only 55-60% considers Fed the GOAT, 35-40% Novak and 5% Nadal...... Good news for Novak, his stock is rising more while Fed's is dwindling.

lmao

Federer was entitled by birth to a certain set of talents? He didn't work hard? Please stop spinning this crap. This forum is already being swallowed by bewildering idiocy, and nothing has even happened yet.

Again, it's all what have you done for me lately. People are unable to look past the hype of what is currently happening right in front of their face.

 

[Sunny014]

lmao

Federer was entitled by birth to a certain set of talents? He didn't work hard? Please stop spinning this crap. This forum is already being swallowed by bewildering idiocy, and nothing has even happened yet.

Again, it's all what have you done for me lately. People are unable to look past the hype of what is currently happening right in front of their face.

He did work hard till 03, then he stopped it, that's why today 2 other guys are tied with him on 20.

Whatever actions we do the ripple effect/the butterfly effect we see a lot later..... not immediately
After that he won his first Wimbledon, then fired his coach, went without coach for 1-2 years, he so far ahead of his closest competitor Roddick that he was feeling Kingly and not in need of a coach, then next gen Nadal arrived and still Fed brushed Nadal off as if he is not that big a deal despite some defeats here and there, instead of curing the backhand problem he was being Kingly, then he was seeded 2 for the first time in slams in 5 years at AO09 and before that he exclaims that it feels weird to be announced world number 2, the sound of it is wrong? Wtf... . ... That is the epitome of entitlement. Then he still did not learn, Novak was coming up and Nadal already was somewhat ahead by 2010 but he still did not change his racquet...... tried to outhit them and thought he could overpower them in 10-13 with his puny racquet, some 4 good years lost. 14 onwards he started his renaissance with Edberg, a decade too late.

As our friend and fan of Martinka @Jason Swerve would say, not maximizing your efforts in your early years and later also in your peak is what cost you to struggle in old age vs youngsters who will not let you win as it is their time. This is the result, the slams race should have been 26-17-17 types today, however it is 20-20-20 and Novak has stripped him of some crucial records.

 

[gadge]

Novak gets broken so frequently in slams, it is outright disgusting, he is a weak chump grinder @Strale

Top 50 Slams won with least times broken (in the last 30 years)

Federer : 13 Times
Sampras : 12 Times
Nadal : 10 Times
Djokovic : 4 Times

Why does Djokovic feature so less in the list of top 25 slams won with least times broken?

Rank Country Name Breaks Against Break Points Matches Season Tournament 1 USA Pete Sampras 2 19 7 1997 Wimbledon 2 USA Pete Sampras 3 22 7 1994 Wimbledon 3 SUI Roger Federer 4 12 7 2006 Wimbledon 4 SUI Roger Federer 4 21 7 2017 Wimbledon 5 ESP Rafael Nadal 4 23 7 2013 US Open...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

You mind making one with converting BPs??

Novak’s serve wasn’t that great for most part of his career. He wasn’t known for serving aces all the time and he’s the best returner and has a chance at every game serving or receiving. All these stats of nitpicking where your idol is better is lame.

 

[The Fedfather]

Federer on average brought a higher level to his Slam final runs. Sets lost is one thing, there's also BPs faced and earned (relative to points played), winners to UE ratio - idk the stats for these, but the feeling is that Federer did better.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Federer on average brought a higher level to his Slam final runs.

Federer on average had a far lower level of opponent on his slam final runs.

 

[SonnyT]

In the long run, you have to be clutch to be dominant. Look at Brady and his 7 SB's, most of his wins were by a point or 2, and he also lost 3 nailbiters. If Brady weren't clutch, his teams would've lost 3 or 4 more, or not been in the SB's at all.

Look at Jordan and his 6 championships. He's much more admired for nailing buzzer beaters, than for romping on over-matched opponents.

Superstars generally are remembered more for pulling out the epic close ones, rather than for the blow-outs.

 

[Strale]

Novak gets broken so frequently in slams, it is outright disgusting, he is a weak chump grinder @Strale

Top 50 Slams won with least times broken (in the last 30 years)

Federer : 13 Times
Sampras : 12 Times
Nadal : 10 Times
Djokovic : 4 Times

Why does Djokovic feature so less in the list of top 25 slams won with least times broken?

Rank Country Name Breaks Against Break Points Matches Season Tournament 1 USA Pete Sampras 2 19 7 1997 Wimbledon 2 USA Pete Sampras 3 22 7 1994 Wimbledon 3 SUI Roger Federer 4 12 7 2006 Wimbledon 4 SUI Roger Federer 4 21 7 2017 Wimbledon 5 ESP Rafael Nadal 4 23 7 2013 US Open...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Excuse me what?

 

[Martin J]

Honestly, this idea that Federer is not 'clutch' is laughable, and the idea that YOU of all people would be adding to the perpetuation of this juvenile, were you born yesterday, what have you done for me lately stupidity is blowing my mind Imagine winning a hundred titles without being clutch.

Some people expect Federer to win every single match, so losing a close match automatically means that he's not clutch and is mentally fragile, while in reality the guy has won tons of close/big matches. Not to mention his dominance (still unmatched) between 2004 and 2007, when he was winning tournament after tournament and stayed at #1 for four consecutive years without even being in danger to lose that position. That requires enormous mental strength and focus, but I guess all that doesn't matter because he didn't win 2019 Wimbledon and 2011 USO.

 

[ibbi]

He did work hard till 03, then he stopped it, that's why today 2 other guys are tied with him on 20.

Whatever actions we do the ripple effect/the butterfly effect we see a lot later..... not immediately
After that he won his first Wimbledon, then fired his coach, went without coach for 1-2 years, he so far ahead of his closest competitor Roddick that he was feeling Kingly and not in need of a coach, then next gen Nadal arrived and still Fed brushed Nadal off as if he is not that big a deal despite some defeats here and there, instead of curing the backhand problem he was being Kingly, then he was seeded 2 for the first time in slams in 5 years at AO09 and before that he exclaims that it feels weird to be announced world number 2, the sound of it is wrong? Wtf... . ... That is the epitome of entitlement. Then he still did not learn, Novak was coming up and Nadal already was somewhat ahead by 2010 but he still did not change his racquet...... tried to outhit them and thought he could overpower them in 10-13 with his puny racquet, some 4 good years lost. 14 onwards he started his renaissance with Edberg, a decade too late.

As our friend and fan of Martinka @Jason Swerve would say, not maximizing your efforts in your early years and later also in your peak is what cost you to struggle in old age vs youngsters who will not let you win as it is their time. This is the result, the slams race should have been 26-17-17 types today, however it is 20-20-20 and Novak has stripped him of some crucial records.

You're going off on some bafflingly random irrelevant tangent. Yes, Federer was stubborn, had an ego, and held on too tenaciously to his way of doing things for too long.

That certainly doesn't mean that he was born talented, inherited his talent, or that he didn't have to work incredibly hard to get everything that he has from the early 00s where he had to totally convert his S/V volley style to that of a baseliner, to the late 00s where he had to start developing his serve more as the rest of his game declined, or in the mid 10s where he had to get infinitely more aggressive to compete with a bunch of younger, dominant guys.

Could he have worked harder when Nadal started giving him trouble? Sure. Novak could have worked harder a bunch of times in his career too. None of this has anything to do with mental toughness, or being clutch.

What this entire idiotic argument comes down to is that Federer in his mid to late 30s was still competing with Djokovic and Nadal in their late 20s to early 30s. Djokovic now in his mid 30s is not dealing with a single talent remotely comparable, thus he's racking up titles, thus all the hoopla that comes with it from people who can't see but what's right in front of their face.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

Djokovic is dominant? Ok.

 

[ND-13]

Both are Amazing
It is by now well established that Djokovic may let things slide but ultimately will hang on. Federer was a phenomenal front runner

 

[NoleFam]

Kind of misleading a bit on this one. Federer has played 48 five set matches out of 429 Slam matches. That's 11.2%. Djokovic has played 42 out of 368 Slam matches which is 11.4%. Federer played them only slightly less and it's not as big of a difference as being suggested here. The main difference between these two is Federer only played 4 five set matches from 2004-2007, his most dominant years, when he won 11 of his Slams, while Djokovic played 5 in 2012 alone. Some might say this is because Djokovic's peak came in a more competitive era. Federer is the better frontrunner though which is shown by his ability to win a Slam without dropping a set, whereas Djokovic gets himself in trouble more often and loses focus.

 

[Permitlady]

What does clutch mean in this context?

Backs to the wall when you pull a rabbit out of a hat

 

[DRII]

You're going off on some bafflingly random irrelevant tangent. Yes, Federer was stubborn, had an ego, and held on too tenaciously to his way of doing things for too long.

That certainly doesn't mean that he was born talented, inherited his talent, or that he didn't have to work incredibly hard to get everything that he has from the early 00s where he had to totally convert his S/V volley style to that of a baseliner, to the late 00s where he had to start developing his serve more as the rest of his game declined, or in the mid 10s where he had to get infinitely more aggressive to compete with a bunch of younger, dominant guys.

Could he have worked harder when Nadal started giving him trouble? Sure. Novak could have worked harder a bunch of times in his career too. None of this has anything to do with mental toughness, or being clutch.

What this entire idiotic argument comes down to is that Federer in his mid to late 30s was still competing with Djokovic and Nadal in their late 20s to early 30s. Djokovic now in his mid 30s is not dealing with a single talent remotely comparable, thus he's racking up titles, thus all the hoopla that comes with it from people who can't see but what's right in front of their face.

I guess just like you couldn't see or realize how Federer was racking up titles against the relative talentless pre 08!

You see, you're just as blind as the ones you ridicule.

Thus we see that Nadal had it the hardest as he always had a ATG in prime form to deal with, unlike Federer or Djokovic, yet he still has the same # of Slams! As of right now at least, hence he is the best of all time!

There is your and others of your ilk's lesson for today...

 

[ibbi]

I guess just like you couldn't see or realize how Federer was racking up titles against the relative talentless pre 08!

You see, you're just as blind as the ones you ridicule.

Thus we see that Nadal had it the hardest as he always had a ATG in prime form to deal with, unlike Federer or Djokovic, yet he still has the same # of Slams! As of right now at least, hence he is the best of all time!

There is your and others of your ilk's lesson for today...

 

[AceSalvo]

Pick one match. Thats your answer.

 

[Fedforever]

Some people expect Federer to win every single match, so losing a close match automatically means that he's not clutch and is mentally fragile, while in reality the guy has won tons of close/big matches. Not to mention his dominance (still unmatched) between 2004 and 2007, when he was winning tournament after tournament and stayed at #1 for four consecutive years without even being in danger to lose that position. That requires enormous mental strength and focus, but I guess all that doesn't matter because he didn't win 2019 Wimbledon and 2011 USO.

Yes, this idea of Fed being some "mental weakling" because of a couple of high profile matches has become very galling over the last few years. I suppose it's inevitable since his big losses are more dramatic and more recent than his relentlessness in his best years.

I see lots of people saying "oh Novak just succumbed to the pressure" on Sunday without any suggestion that that makes him "weak". Before the trolls leap in I don't think it makes him weak either, that would be phenomenally stupid. But it's been galling to see the inconsistency.

 

[Tennfan123]

Neither, especially.

 

[Federev]

Honestly….Imagine winning a hundred titles without being clutch.

9.98/10

 

[Federev]

Pick one match. Thats your answer.

Who’s that guy on the right? What’s his deal?