Alcaraz to Djokovic is Djokovic to Federer at WB

[GabeT]

So Djokovic played better than old Federer basically only the time he had his slump season, but he was worse every other year when Federer was in good form, and yet old Djokovic is better than old Federer at Wimbledon?

Is this your logic?

You need to follow the debate here.

Novak has, since 2018, reached every final at W and won all but 1. The argument by (some) Fedal fans is that despite this fed remains the better player even when comparing them in their old age. Those fans will highlight that Fed had to face a younger Novak but that Novak himself never had to face someone like that at the same age.

The problem with this is that Fed lost more times to "mugs" in the comparable period than he lost to Novak. Novak, on the other hand, did not lose to any mugs in this period.

 

[GabeT]

Then surely you’ll have seen that Federer’s results from age 21-31 blow Novak’s out of the water?

And Fed even won Junior Wimbledon!

Sure, but I'm not comparing those years. That's a separate discussion.

 

[RS]

I think the only way he pries himself in is by making a 2010-to-2011 Djokovic transformation (or, to be fairer, a 2008-to-2011 Djokovic transformation). And it’s just hard to see which attributes he can feasibly improve significantly enough to make that happen.

I would hazard that his raw athleticism (something he relies on a lot) is already near its peak, his defensive return is near its peak (most studies I’ve read show that reaction time peaks in a person’s early 20’s) and…well, he’s 5’11 barefoot. He’s got a sturdy second serve, good accuracy and a live arm that can rocket serves into the high 130’s, so it’s not like he’s failing to make good with the tools he does have. But his height prevents him from generating easy angles with margin.

Not necessarily Big 3 level but there are people who consider even the Borg's and Sampras's etc etc as that level but minus the achivements. Alcaraz has started off quicker than 2/3 members of the big 3. We are yet to know how much he can improve or if this is his max or he re adjusts as he gets older in his mid to late 20s and especially his 30s. Maybe due to modern medicine he will be able to make his career last even longer who knows.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Not necessarily Big 3 level but there are people who consider even the Borg's and Sampras's etc etc.

Those guys did reach that level, imo.

For now it’s a manufactured debate.

 

[Racquet_smash]

You need to follow the debate here.

Novak has, since 2018, reached every final at W and won all but 1. The argument by (some) Fedal fans is that despite this fed remains the better player even when comparing them in their old age. Those fans will highlight that Fed had to face a younger Novak but that Novak himself never had to face someone like that at the same age.

The problem with this is that Fed lost more times to "mugs" in the comparable period than he lost to Novak. Novak, on the other hand, did not lose to any mugs in this period.

In their 30s Fed has only 2 losses to "mugs" which are Stakovsky and Anderson. Djokovic on the other hand went out early only in 2017 when he withdrew, during his slump season just like Fed's in 2013.

So, if we exclude their slump seasons (since both had one in their 30s) Federer really only lost to Anderson when he was in good form. You are basically saying that old Djokovic is better than old Federer at Wimbledon simply because of one loss? Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me, especially when you consider Federer had by far the most impressive wins (2012 run at 31, 2017 run dropping 0 sets, 2019 run beating Nadal in 4 and nearly beating Djokovic).

 

[RS]

Those guys did reach that level, imo.

For now it’s a manufactured debate.

Yeah I meant by achievements there. By level of play there are arguments frequently they are as good as big 3 were.

 

[GabeT]

In their 30s Fed has only 2 losses to "mugs" which are Stakovsky and Anderson. Djokovic on the other hand went out early only in 2017 when he withdrew, during his slump season just like Fed's in 2013.

So, if we exclude their slump seasons (since both had one in their 30s) Federer really only lost to Anderson when he was in good form. You are basically saying that old Djokovic is better than old Federer at Wimbledon simply because of one loss? Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me, especially when you consider Federer had by far the most impressive wins (2012 run at 31, 2017 run dropping 0 sets, 2019 run beating Nadal in 4 and nearly beating Djokovic).

I am comparing like with like.

Remember, this debate comes mainly from Fed fans that don't accept that Novak could play anywhere near as well as Fed did in their old age. This particular debate is not about Novak's slump years (say 2016-2017) because no one argues that Fed played better in the equivalent years.

The argument by (some, not all) Fed fans is that the only reason Novak won as much as he did at Wimbledon since 2018 is that he faced weak opponents and that if a similarly aged Fed had faced the same kind of opponents at that same age he would have won more. But that's simply not true. That's what I'm pointing out. Fed lost to three "mugs" (Raonic, Anderson and Stakhovsky). Of course, these are not mugs (no player that plays in Wimbledon is one) but it's what TTW seems to call anyone who is not a clear ATG.

If you are telling me that some of those losses are due to fed's "slumps" I can certainly agree. I'm just pointing out that Novak didn't have equivalent slumps at the same age.

 

[Racquet_smash]

I am comparing like with like.

Remember, this debate comes mainly from Fed fans that don't accept that Novak could play anywhere near as well as Fed did in their old age. This particular debate is not about Novak's slump years (say 2016-2017) because no one argues that Fed played better in the equivalent years.

The argument by (some, not all) Fed fans is that the only reason Novak won as much as he did at Wimbledon since 2018 is that he faced weak opponents and that if a similarly aged Fed had faced the same kind of opponents at that same age he would have won more. But that's simply not true. That's what I'm pointing out. Fed lost to three "mugs" (Raonic, Anderson and Stakhovsky). Of course, these are not mugs (no player that plays in Wimbledon is one) but it's what TTW seems to call anyone who is not a clear ATG.

If you are telling me that some of those losses are due to fed's "slumps" I can certainly agree. I'm just pointing out that Novak didn't have equivalent slumps at the same age.

I mean Fed in 2012-2019 had tons of extremely good runs at Wimbledon. Would have he won 4 titles in his old age with easier competition? Maybe. After all, he made it to the final 5 times in this time frame, and the only opponent he lost in those is Djokovic.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Heavy doubt. If that does happen it’ll probably be through a kind of consistency-botting/vulturing that puts what Djokodal did from ‘17-onward to shame. Don’t mean to be so negative, Carlos is great for the game and may have a level-jump or two left in him…but he’s no GOAT.

Unfortunately/fortunately, Alcaraz would widely be acclaimed as GOAT if he won the most slams, vulturing or not, as most people do not care about this kind of details, not to sound cynical but this is still a perspective to keep in mind I think.Which of course doesn't mean we would have to agree with that statement. Still, if Alcaraz won on Sunday, most people (myself included) would probably consider him already greater than someone like Wawrinka, for example.

 

[GabeT]

I mean Fed in 2012-2019 had tons of extremely good runs at Wimbledon. Would have he won 4 titles in his old age with easier competition? Maybe. After all, he made it to the final 5 times in this time frame, and the only opponent he lost in those is Djokovic.

I don't disagree that he had good runs, but the numbers show he had fewer good runs than Novak did at that age.

Another way to look at it:

Fed had an incredible run from 2003 to 2009. Wins six times in that period. 2009 for Fed is the equivalent of 2015 for Novak. Both saw changes after dominating. But Novak managed to do much better.

In 2009 Fed turns 28, same age Novak turns in 2015. If we compare the Wimb results up to that age it's clear Fed did better. But after that age the tables turn.

From 2010 to 2018 (not including 2019 because the equivalent year for Novak, 2025, has yet to happen) Fed wins twice, is stopped by an ATG twice, and loses 5 times to non ATGs. This last point is huge.

Novak, in his equivalent years (2016 to 2024), loses only two times to non-ATGs, in 2016 and 2017. He wins 4 times, and it could have been 5 times absent Covid. He is stopped by ATGs at least once, we will have to see what happens on Sunday.

I think the results are very clear.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Unfortunately/fortunately, Alcaraz would widely be acclaimed as GOAT if he won the most slams, vulturing or not, as most people do not care about this kind of details, not to sound cynical but this is still a perspective to keep in mind I think.Which of course doesn't mean we would have to agree with that statement. Still, if Alcaraz won on Sunday, most people (myself included) would probably consider him already greater than someone like Wawrinka, for example.

Exactly. It all about titles. People can argue competition but it doesn’t change the fact it’s titles that determine where a player ends up in the history of the sport.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Unfortunately/fortunately, Alcaraz would widely be acclaimed as GOAT if he won the most slams, vulturing or not, as most people do not care about this kind of details, not to sound cynical but this is still a perspective to keep in mind I think.Which of course doesn't mean we would have to agree with that statement. Still, if Alcaraz won on Sunday, most people (myself included) would probably consider him already greater than someone like Wawrinka, for example.

Oh for sure, but I’m ignoring consensus here.

 

[Rafa the King]

Federer wasn't gifted with such kind draws and ample withdrawals in his old age. Djokovic is the marginal favorite against whoever meets him.

Let’s not pretend the WIM 17 or AO 18 draws were anything to brag about (although WIM 17 until the final was still 10x more difficult than Novak’s draws to the final since ‘21)

 

[FRV4]

The big 3 are all better than Brady, because tennis is a sport played by millions worldwide. The NFL is only played to any great level in America, it's a niche sport at best in the rest of the world

I didn’t make that comparison anywhere

 

[Djokovic2011]

If Djokovic couldn’t beat him last year when he was playing well and physically stronger he isn’t doing it now. Alcaraz is the heir to the big 3 so he will win many Wimbledons and likely challenge the record here.

It'll be hilarious if Alcaraz does equal Federer's record one day when the RF fans are literally praying right now that he prevents Djokovic from getting there first.

 

[Tano]

It'll be hilarious if Alcaraz does equal Federer's record one day when the RF fans are literally praying right now that he prevents Djokovic from getting there first.

Wasn't it like that when Djokovic defeated Nadal in GS finals in the period 2011/12 and 2018/19 and they applauded the Serbian for preventing the Spaniard from winning Major titles?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Wasn't it like that when Djokovic defeated Nadal in GS finals in the period 2011/12 and 2018/19 and they applauded the Serbian for preventing the Spaniard from winning Major titles?

Yep. The 2011-12 period in particular.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Exactly. It all about titles. People can argue competition but it doesn’t change the fact it’s titles that determine where a player ends up in the history of the sport.

It’s not purely all about any one thing, imo. Not when the topic is as subjective as something like this.

Some fans justifiably appeal to only results as a trump card. It’s a good bulwark against bad-faith attempts meant to minimize their importance, but not everyone does that so it’s not always an applicable response.

If Raz approaches TB3’s results with his current level, will I rank him up there with them for the sake of objectivity-posturing? No, definitely not.

 

[TheFifthSet]

The big 3 are all better than Brady, because tennis is a sport played by millions worldwide. The NFL is only played to any great level in America, it's a niche sport at best in the rest of the world

Tennis however has a much higher barrier to entry, with only roughly 300 players breaking even playing the sport, if that.

American Football conversely attracts the best athletes, across all economic stratas. It’s a cheaper sport to play in one’s youth (and certainly a cheaper sport to get good at). The NFL has 1700 roster spots, where the MINIMUM yearly salary is 795K.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

It'll be hilarious if Alcaraz does equal Federer's record one day when the RF fans are literally praying right now that he prevents Djokovic from getting there first.

Totally agree. I can see it happening too. He’s so clear of the rest on the grass!

 

[Federev]

Why are you putting such bad energy into the field? Do you want to hurt Djokovic? Every match has to be played first. Unbelievable.

Go easy on him. He’s a kind poster.

And - He is just protecting his heart.

It is a well used method for fans to lower expectations of their faves in a tension filled context.

He may not even know he is doing it. It’s not a conscious thing.

He doesn’t want that to happen; and he isn’t even confident that will happen. But he tells himself and us it will happen in order to soften the blow of it does happen.

 

[Federev]

Novak wants the OG although even he prioritized Wimbledon over just focusing on the Olympics. OG is a great trophy but I don’t see it as part of the GOAT debate

Regardless of the GOAT debate, the Wimby record should mean way more to him.

Even without the Olympics - a Wimbledon title is better than an Olympic title.

It’s the ultimate prize in tennis.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Totally agree. I can see it happening too. He’s so clear of the rest on the grass!

If he becomes a 2 time champion at just 21 and if(admittedly it is a big if) he stays healthy for the next 10 years then there's every chance that he will equal it one day. The grass court competition these days isn't exactly stellar.