18 years after the first time Djokovic could go 5 consecutive Slams undefeated except vs peak ATGs

[junkieballer]

2007 Roland Garros = lost SF to #2 Nadal
2007 Wimbledon = lost SF to #2 Nadal
2007 US Open = lost F to #1 Federer
2008 Australian Open = won the title (beating #1 Federer)
2008 Roland Garros = lost SF to #2 Nadal

exactly 18 years later:

2025 Roland Garros = lost SF to #1 Sinner
2025 Wimbledon = lost SF to #1 Sinner
2025 US Open = lost SF to #2 Alcaraz
2026 Australian Open = lost F to #1 Alcaraz (beating #2 Sinner)
2026 Roland Garros = ?

Infant and grandpa Nole requires peaking ATGs to lose, and he even won two matches against them.

 

[tennis_pro]

What was the reason you omitted Djokovic losing to no 1 Federer at the 2007 AO?

 

[junkieballer]

What was the reason you omitted Djokovic losing to no 1 Federer at the 2007 AO?

I thought of semifinals/finals

 

[tennis_pro]

I thought of semifinals/finals

Of course. Anything to exclude Federer's wins and Djokovic's losses. You gonna do what you gonna do.

 

[junkieballer]

Of course. Anything to exclude Federer's wins and Djokovic's losses. You gonna do what you gonna do.

No I was referring to SFs and Fs

If it was 1st round it wouldn't have the same meaning

 

[tennis_pro]

No I was referring to SFs and Fs

If it was 1st round it wouldn't have the same meaning

Of course. Like Djokovic was beating 2007 AO Fed in any round lol.

 

[RS]

How do you come up with these stats lol.

 

[junkieballer]

Of course. Like Djokovic was beating 2007 AO Fed in any round lol.

This thread is not about beating Federer or other ATGs. It's about beating all players except ATGs

 

[tennis_pro]

This thread is not about beating Federer or other ATGs. It's about beating all players except ATGs

This thread is about a very specific trivia that you once again cherry picked to make Federer look bad and Djokovic look good.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Of course. Anything to exclude Federer's wins and Djokovic's losses. You gonna do what you gonna do.

You do realize that would only make the streak longer and more impressive?

 

[Pheasant]

How many guys went to 5 consecutive slam semis in the Open Era? That’s going to be a very short list; maybe only 5-7 guys in the Open Era. Djoker did this 18 years apart. That is absolutely mind-boggling. And it took an ATG or an injury to knock him out each time.

 

[tennis_pro]

You do realize that would only make the streak longer and more impressive?

An additional loss would make Djokovic look better, yeah.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

An additional loss would make Djokovic look better, yeah.

Sigh...The list is about consecutive tournaments only losing to an ATG. If the loss is against an ATG, the streak is longer, if it's another player, it's not. Federer, as far as I know, is an ATG. Hence, that defeat makes the list longer, not shorter. Get it?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Djokovic in 2007/2008 only lost to Fedal in 7/8 slams, that's a forgotten stat. And the other one was a redlining Safin, so not a bad loss either, unlike some of the ones in 2009/2010 (Kohli, Melzer).

Now, I think Djokovic will lose early(ish) at RG. He's been consistent at slams but hardly played since AO, and there's so much you can reduce your schedule; he's turning 39, and I think he's due for an early loss. Also, I think he's thinking more about Wimbledon than RG.

 

[junkieballer]

This thread is about a very specific trivia that you once again cherry picked to make Federer look bad and Djokovic look good.

It has to do with Federer as much as it has with Nadal, Sinner and Alcaraz

 

[junkieballer]

How many guys went to 5 consecutive slam semis in the Open Era? That’s going to be a very short list; maybe only 5-7 guys in the Open Era. Djoker did this 18 years apart. That is absolutely mind-boggling. And it took an ATG or an injury to knock him out each time.

Nadal
Murray
Becker
Federer
Lendl
Sinner

Only 6 other players.

 

[tennis_pro]

Sigh...The list is about consecutive tournaments only losing to an ATG. If the loss is against an ATG, the streak is longer, if it's another player, it's not. Federer, as far as I know, is an ATG. Hence, that defeat makes the list longer, not shorter. Get it?

Suuuure thing. OP excluded Fed to make Djokovic look worse. Riiiight.

The same way he said Fed went only 3-2 in the Slams against Djokovic from 2008 AO to 2011 AO. Totally had nothing to do with excluding 2007 USO and 2011 FO. Don't make me laugh.

In fact including 2007 AO and excluding 2008 FO would make the span between the 2 periods longer and look even more impressive, but whatever has to be done to exclude any Fed win at all cost. Again, don't make me laugh. OP is a certified creative accountant, don't pretend otherwise.

 

[junkieballer]

Suuuure thing. OP excluded Fed to make Djokovic look worse. Riiiight.

The same way he said Fed went only 3-2 in the Slams against Djokovic from 2008 AO to 2011 AO. Totally had nothing to do with excluding 2007 USO and 2011 FO. Don't make me laugh.

In fact including 2007 AO and excluding 2008 FO would make the span between the 2 periods longer and look even more impressive, but whatever has to be done to exclude any Fed win at all cost. Again, don't make me laugh. OP is a certified creative accountant, don't pretend otherwise.

SF is more important than R16.

The thread is about semis and finals

 

[tennis_pro]

It has to do with Federer as much as it has with Nadal, Sinner and Alcaraz

Of course. But why include Fed when you can exclude him, right?

 

[tennis_pro]

SF is more important than R16.

The thread is about semis and finals

Of course. Once again, do what you gonna do to make it work :*

 

[junkieballer]

Of course. But why include Fed when you can exclude him, right?

Including 2007 AO would make Novak look better, because it would extend his streak, but I think that reaching R16 is not such a big deal for the GOAT

 

[tennis_pro]

Including 2007 AO would make Novak look better, because it would extend his streak, but I think that reaching R16 is not such a big deal for the GOAT

Including 2007 AO would make Djokovic look better, but why do it and give Federer credit when you don't have to, right?

but I think that reaching R16 is not such a big deal for the GOAT

Like Fed drawing Djokovic at the 2007 AO in the SF instead of the R4 would make any difference. Quite a difference playing Fed at his peak compared to Federer in 2018 or something.

 

[junkieballer]

Including 2007 AO would make Djokovic look better, but why do it and give Federer credit when you don't have to, right?

Because R16 is not as important as SF

 

[junkieballer]

Like Fed drawing Djokovic at the 2007 AO in the SF instead of the R4 would make any difference. Quite a difference playing Fed at his peak compared to Federer in 2018 or something.

Would have Nole reached the SF? That's the point. We don't know, and R16 is not impressive enough to be included in this thread

This thread is about Djokovic, not Federer

 

[tennis_pro]

Would Nole reach the SF? That's the point. We don't know, and R16 is not impressive enough to be included in this thread.

He was already playing like a top 5 player at the time. Right after the AO in 2007:
Dubai - reached the QF and pushed Fed to a 3rd set
IW - reached the final
M - won beating Nadal on the way
Clay - reached several SF including the FO
Grass - reached the Wimbledon SF
NA HC season - won Canada, reached the USO final losing to Fed

But why include a match in which Federer smoked Djokovic? Why on earth would someone do that?

This thread is about Djokovic, not Federer

Yeah yeah yeah it always is, but you miraculously never waste an opportunity to crap on Federer in any way you can, even if it's subtle like here.

 

[tennis_pro]

Because R16 is not as important as SF

The strength of the opponent matters more than the round, it usually happens when a new great player emerges and he hasn't built his ranking yet. Once the player goes up the rankings (like the top 3/4) obviously they can only meet in the SF or F.

What was more important? Djokovic beating Wawrinka in the 2013 AO 4th round or him beating Ferrer in the SF?

 

[junkieballer]

He was already playing like a top 5 player at the time. Right after the AO in 2007:

Djokovic lost to #22 Youzhny in the two tournaments after AO (Rotterdam and Marseille), so there is no guarantee he would have reached the semifinal at AO if he didn't face Federer.

 

[tennis_pro]

Djokovic lost to #22 Youzhny in the two tournaments after AO (Rotterdam and Marseille), so there is no guarantee he would have reached the semifinal if he didn't face Federer.

Djokovic totally performed at the same level for a 500 and for a Slam, even in 2007. He had all kinds of random losses in 2007, but only lost to Federer and Nadal in the Slams. Coincidence?

 

[junkieballer]

Djokovic totally performed at the same level for a 500 and for a Slam. He had all kinds of random losses in 2007, but only lost to Federer and Nadal in the Slams. Coincidence?

Maybe, but it is still hypothetical therefore irrelevant. In reality he reached the R16 at AO and I didn't find it impressive enough to include it in the thread.

 

[tennis_pro]

Maybe, but it is still hypothetical therefore irrelevant. In reality he reached the R16 at AO and I didn't find it impressive enough to include it in the thread.

Yes, I understand. Do whatever you feel you need to do to exclude a Fed win, man. I'm with you. Like the other day you brought up Federer being 2-3 against Djokovic from 2008 AO to 2011 AO. Do whatever you have to do.

 

[junkieballer]

Yes, I understand. Do whatever you feel you need to do to exclude a Fed win, man. I'm with you. Like the other day you brought up Federer being 2-3 against Djokovic from 2008 AO to 2011 AO. Do whatever you have to do.

That was a different topic, don't derail this thread

 

[tennis_pro]

That was a different topic, don't derail this thread

The thread should be called "Hey I found another stat where I can exclude another Fed win".

Don't you ever get bored of manipulating reality?

 

[junkieballer]

The thread should be called "Hey I found another stat where I can exclude another Fed win".

Don't you ever get bored of manipulating reality?

The thread should be called exactly the way it is called except I should have added "in semifinal/finals"

 

[tennis_pro]

The thread should be called exactly the way it is called except I should have added "in semifinal/finals"

Another good version would be:
"Hey guys I found another stat in which Djokovic looks good and I can exclude some Federer wins, but I have to include:
- a specific period
- a specific round/s
- a specific weather
- a specific opponent in a specific round
- a specific condition xyz etc."

Again, do whatever you need to do to to make Djokovic look better and Fed worse. You have my full support.

 

[Razer]

Djokovic has been very consistent in reaching the SF and F, no doubt.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yes, I understand. Do whatever you feel you need to do to exclude a Fed win, man. I'm with you. Like the other day you brought up Federer being 2-3 against Djokovic from 2008 AO to 2011 AO. Do whatever you have to do.

lol that was the next level. A random period framed by two Fed wins at slams and then having the audacity talking about 26-29 years old Fed as if there was some special meaning behind these numbers and not completely cherry-picked. Fun fact: even there it was a fail since Fed was already 26 at USO 07 and still 29 at FO 2011. The icing on the cake was that Lew’s specific wording was Fed was 2-6 against Djokovic and Nadal from AO 2008 till AO 2011. That is basically like me or you boasting that we and Djoko were 6-0 against Nadal in 2011.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Another day, another thread created by the OP where he’s getting destroyed in, lol.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Another day, another thread created by the OP where he’s getting destroyed in, lol.

You cannot help but stay amazed about the diligence end effort some people put in completely useless endeavours. Just imagine Lew would use this dedication for something actually useful instead of praising Djoko all day long.

 

[junkieballer]

lol that was the next level. A random period framed by two Fed wins at slams and then having the audacity talking about 26-29 years old Fed as if there was some special meaning behind these numbers and not completely cherry-picked. Fun fact: even there it was a fail since Fed was already 26 at USO 07 and still 29 at FO 2011. The icing on the cake was that Lew’s specific wording was Fed was 2-6 against Djokovic and Nadal from AO 2008 till AO 2011. That is basically like me or you boasting that we and Djoko were 6-0 against Nadal in 2011.

Nothing I posted is wrong.

Federer was 26-29 years old from 2008 Australian Open to 2011 Australian Open.

Federer was 2-3 against Djokovic and 0-3 against Nadal from 2008 Australian Open to 2011 Australian Open. Total = 2-6.

 

[junkieballer]

Another day, another thread created by the OP where he’s getting destroyed in, lol.

You talk like a 14 years old boy, there's no destruction, we are just talking

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Nothing I posted is wrong.

Federer was 26-29 years old from 2008 Australian Open to 2011 Australian Open.

Federer was 2-3 against Djokovic and 0-3 against Nadal from 2008 Australian Open to 2011 Australian Open. Total = 2-6.

I don’t say it is wrong, it is just hilarious cherry picking and lumping Nadal together with Nole doesn’t make Nole in relation to Fed any better. If you simply look at their matches from where Fed was 26-29, then Fed is 4-3 vs Djoko.

 

[junkieballer]

I don’t say it is wrong, it is just hilarious cherry picking and lumping Nadal together with Nole doesn’t make Nole in relation to Fed any better. If you simply look at their matches from where Fed was 26-29, then Fed is 4-3 vs Djoko.

Everyone does cherrypicking. Why Fed fans always stop the h2h at age 30? That's cherrypicking

 

[junkieballer]

I don’t say it is wrong, it is just hilarious cherry picking and lumping Nadal together with Nole doesn’t make Nole in relation to Fed any better. If you simply look at their matches from where Fed was 26-29, then Fed is 4-3 vs Djoko.

At age 26-29 Federer was 4-7 against Djokovic and Nadal (4-3 vs Djokovic and 0-4 against Nadal including 0-2 outside clay), so still a very bad h2h against two main rivals while still being young, proving that Federer's problem was not age

 

[The Blond Blur]

You talk like a 14 years old boy, there's no destruction, we are just talking

Looks like a hit a nerve. Beats sounding like a 4 year old. Djokervic is the bestest ever of el Tim thread #529,754,328 loading

 

[The Blond Blur]

I don’t say it is wrong, it is just hilarious cherry picking and lumping Nadal together with Nole doesn’t make Nole in relation to Fed any better. If you simply look at their matches from where Fed was 26-29, then Fed is 4-3 vs Djoko.

Yeah, I pointed the same thing out in another thread. Trying to make Fed look worse by lumping Nadavic together (when RAFA did most of the damage to Fed in that timeframe) is incredibly disingenuous.

 

[junkieballer]

Yeah, I pointed the same thing out in another thread. Trying to make Fed look worse by lumping Nadavic together (when RAFA did most of the damage to Fed in that timeframe) is incredibly disingenuous.

And Djokovic dealt better with old Federer.

Since 2014 Wimbledon:

Djokovic: 11-5
Nadal 1-6

At Slams:

Djokovic 6-0
Nadal 1-2

 

[The Blond Blur]

And Djokovic dealt better with old Federer:

Since 2014 RG:

Djokovic 6-0
Nadal 1-2

Who cares? I’m not the one lumping two players together to make a 3rd guy look worse. All in an effort to make the guy I root for look better…Especially when it was the guy you lumped your favorite with who did most of the heavy lifting.

 

[junkieballer]

Who cares? I’m not the one lumping two players together to make a 3rd guy look worse. All in an effort to make the guy I root for look better…Especially when it was the guy you lumped your favorite with who did most of the heavy lifting.

To prove a point players get lumped together all time even if stats are different.

For example they say Sincaraz won last 9 Slams even if they are not equal because Alcaraz won 5 and Sinner won 4.

The point here is that Federer struggled with Djokodal even while still being in his 20s.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Players get lumped together all time even if stats are different.

For example when they say Sincaraz won last 9 Slams they are not equal because Alcaraz won 5 and Sinner won 4.

No they don’t, lol. Not the way you’re doing it. You’re trying to make Fed look bad by saying he had a losing record to Nadavic combined at ages 26-29 when most of that is thanks to RAFA. Separate Nadavic and Fed has a winning record against your guy. @BorgTheGOAT is 100% right, it’s hilarious cherry-picking.

 

[junkieballer]

No they don’t, lol. Not the way you’re doing it. You’re trying to make Fed look bad by saying he had a losing record to Nadavic combined at ages 26-29 when most of that is thanks to RAFA. Separate Nadavic and Fed has a winning record against your guy. @BorgTheGOAT is 100% right, it’s hilarious cherry-picking.

Stopping the head to head at age 30 is also cherrypicking

The real h2h is

27-23 overall
4-1 in Slam finals
7-4 in Slam semis
2-0 YEC finals
5-3 in Masters finals