Fed & Djoker are more versitile yet haven't won multiple slams on all surfaces.
Fed & Djoker are more versitile yet they haven't won the channel slam (opposing specialist surfaces like you say) twice
Fed & Djoker are more versitile yet Rafa has won 6 titles on hard and grass and Djokerer have combined for two on clay
On clay they mostly lost to the king of clay? No, they've lost to him 5 times but that leaves the 11 times Fed has lost to someone else and the 7 times Djoker lost to someone else.
Fed & Djoker are just as good on every surface? The stats don't really back this up. Their performances are all showing a steadily high level with Fed & Rafa standing out at Wimby & RG respectively.
- AO finals:
- RG finals:
- WIM finals
- USO finals
Re: the supposed dominance of Fed & Djoker, it is pretty clear that Rafa has had an injury punctuated career. The fact that he is on 17 slams, 33 M1000, 80 career titles and still at the top of the game adds to his legacy rather than detracts from it. And despite the perception of far greater dominance by Djokerer, they are still only one YE # 1 ahead of Rafa.... that's it. Not really a gaping hole. Federer utterly dominated his generation like the champion he is, but the winning significantly slowed once Djoker & Rafa matured.
In terms of hard court speeds, sure, I understand that, but Madrid plays differently to RG. Wimby at the start of Fed's career plays differently to now. Laver won the grand slam when three of the four slams were played on grass. This is why distribution has never mattered historically and doesn't matter now. A slam is a slam and a title is a title. But if we are going to slate Rafa for winning 64% of slams and 66% of M1000 on clay then Djoker must be put under the spotlight for winning 66% of slams and 75% of M1000 on hard.