At the slam level, who do you think between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic has achieved less than they could have?

Who hot less than they could have gotten?

  • Federer

    Votes: 59 55.1%
  • Nadal

    Votes: 15 14.0%
  • Djokovic

    Votes: 20 18.7%
  • I'don't see much difference

    Votes: 7 6.5%
  • All three got the most they could get

    Votes: 6 5.6%

  • Total voters
    107

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
At the slam level, who do you think between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic has achieved less than they could have?

This is also probably an unoriginal topic, I suppose, discussed several times in the past, where I imagine that the most popular answer is Federer, both because all things considered, although he is considered by many to be the most talented, he is the one who has collected the least, but also and above all for the many occasions in which he has wasted match points, such as the two semifinals with Djokovic at the 2010 and 2011 US Open, the one at the 2005 Australian Open with Safin, and obviously the famous final with Djokovic at Wimbledon 2019.

Or thinking about the finals in which he was clearly favored and then lost in the fifth set with Del Potro at the 2009 US Open, and those with Nadal at Wimbledon 2008 and at the 2009 Australian Open.

And yet, and this is the excuse why I opened this thread, I am not so convinced that the answer must necessarily be Federer.
Nadal is the player of the Big Three currently with the longer duration career at the top level, having started winning slams in 2005 until 2022, yet of the three he is also the player who has played the fewest slams overall, the vast majority missed due to injury.

Finally Djokovic, here it is enough to mention in addition to 2017 "lost" due to an elbow problem when he could still potentially be in his peak period, but above all the covid effect that essentially cost him 3 slams in which he would have been the big favorite, respectively Wimbledon 2020 canceled and Australian Open and Us Open 2022, to which we add the 2020 edition of the Us Open where he was disqualified.

That said, the problem with similar dilemmas for retroactive purposes is always the same as ignoring the cause and effect component, i.e. like the Nadal example, ignoring the fact that he was the one of the 3 who missed the most slams due to injuries, but those injuries came precisely because he pushed his body too hard, which on the one hand made him miss many slams, but on the other hand allowed him to win 22.
Or in the case of Djokovic, if there hadn't been covid he would most likely have won all or the vast majority of the slams mentioned above, but at the same time we can't rule out that by doing so he might have arrived at the beginning of 2023 more physically and mentally worn out, ergo, if Djokovic had won all those slams that he was forced to miss due to covid then we can't even rule out that he would still have had the brilliance to achieve what he achieved in 2023.
In short, it's like a dog chasing its tail.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
The answer is easy Djokovic. He was fit and didn't get chance to play 2 slams and was defaulted in another with 1 more cancelled where he was favorite.

Nadal has no such thing. When you are injured you deserve nothing.

Fed is in between with few missed chances but let's be very clear. His opponents are not dead. In a match you always have threat of opponent mounting comeback. So not fed.
 

ND-13

Legend
Federer grew up in a different generation and he was not used to the heck I don’t care shots on MP.

He did not come to terms with that style till the end and always believed in winning by effort and tactics
 
Federer grew up in a different generation and he was not used to the heck I don’t care shots on MP.

He did not come to terms with that style till the end and always believed in winning by effort and tactics
I’m interested in what you’re saying but not completely getting it. I mean at match point, hasn’t every player, from every generation, wanted to just go for it? What are you saying about Federer? I don’t think of him as overly defensive.
 

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
Everyone knows of Fed's MP fiascos over the years, but what doesn't get talked about as often is how much time he wasted pre-Wim 03. He didn't take things as seriously as he should have until Peter Carter's unfortunate death.
 

geromino

Rookie
Everyone knows of Fed's MP fiascos over the years, but what doesn't get talked about as often is how much time he wasted pre-Wim 03. He didn't take things as seriously as he should have until Peter Carter's unfortunate death.
True, everyone and their grandmother on the mens tour was winning slams and making finals back then- no excuse for Federer to grab at least a couple in that period. Nadal and Djokovic would have cleaned house at Federer’s age in that era.
 
Gotta be nadal. Nadal because he was injured damn near every year with something and missed a host of slams entirely. . If Nadal wasn’t injury prone forget it. He would have been close to 40 Slams. Fed should have won 30 slams but that was due to chokes mainly. Not injuries. Nadals peak in 2009 was taken away too. Fed and Djokers peak wasn’t taken away due to injuries. All the slams he missed and he still only had 2 less slams than Djoker that didn’t miss much at all.

The only reason Nadal doesn’t have close to double the slams of Djoker is due to injuries.
 

Sputnik Bulgorov

Professional
By ‘achieved less than they could have’ I’d like to add in some structure to the discussion by only focusing on circumstances they can control.

In this case it’s either Federer - who wasted so many opportunities from winning positions, all of which have been listed in the OP.

Or Djokovic, who could have complied with border entry requirements and controlled his anger better to participate in more slams where he would be the massive favorite.

Even if Nadal missed the most slams, he didn’t really have control over his injuries and they were always going to happen without freak durability.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
Gotta be nadal. Nadal because he was injured damn near every year with something and missed a host of slams entirely. . If Nadal wasn’t injury prone forget it. He would have been close to 40 Slams. Fed should have won 30 slams but that was due to chokes mainly. Not injuries. Nadals peak in 2009 was taken away too. Fed and Djokers peak wasn’t taken away due to injuries. All the slams he missed and he still only had 2 less slams than Djoker that didn’t miss much at all.

The only reason Nadal doesn’t have close to double the slams of Djoker is due to injuries.
Nadal should have at least 25 Major titles, easily.
:(
 
Nadal should have at least 25 Major titles, easily.
:(

Understatement of the millennium. Dude goes unbeaten for almost 145 years, suffers a few unexpected setbacks due to a confluence of bizarre events flowing out of the pandemic in 2022, then wins back to back CYGSes again in 2023 and 2024, taking his slam count past 600, and some “fan” claims he should have 25 slams.
 
Djokovic missed a few slams when he was healthy and the top favorite to win.

Federer took advantage of the weakest era (2003-2007) in tennis when no any other ATG level player was in contention.
No one is agreeing with you because everyone knows the weakest era of all time is the CIE and it's not even close. Please get with the times
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Gotta be nadal. Nadal because he was injured damn near every year with something and missed a host of slams entirely. . If Nadal wasn’t injury prone forget it. He would have been close to 40 Slams. Fed should have won 30 slams but that was due to chokes mainly. Not injuries. Nadals peak in 2009 was taken away too. Fed and Djokers peak wasn’t taken away due to injuries. All the slams he missed and he still only had 2 less slams than Djoker that didn’t miss much at all.

The only reason Nadal doesn’t have close to double the slams of Djoker is due to injuries.

Nadal's injuries are like Djoko's gluten allergy sir. Weird that you can see one but not the other

For the topic it's gotta be Fed, although he won his first Wimbledon when he was still 21.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Nadal. 1000%.

Another interesting curio: Nadal, I believe, is the only Big 3 member to have ever voluntarily sat out a major.

2020 US Open. He didn’t miss it through injury, didn’t miss it because he was banned or not allowed to attend, or not allowed to fly. He just didn’t go because he couldn’t assure the safety of himself and his team.

The craziest thing about it is that he was defending US Open champion that year, too.

But when it comes to the big 3, these guys were masters at capitalising. They didn’t leave much on the table. To me they define themselves by the half opportunities they grabbed more than the half opportunities they missed. When I think of missed opportunities it’s more for players like Murray and Wawrinka who also had extraordinary talent and occupied the same rarified air as the Big 3 for periods of their career without anything like the same achievements to show for their ability.
 

Jonas78

Legend
Depends on how you see it. If you include gigantic chokes and also some bad luck with opponents (like Fed running into peak-Nole 4 times 2014-2016), id say its clearly Roger.

But by all means, Djokovic was the clear fav when he was disqualified at USO and didnt get to play AO.
 

Garro

Rookie
Gotta be nadal. Nadal because he was injured damn near every year with something and missed a host of slams entirely. . If Nadal wasn’t injury prone forget it. He would have been close to 40 Slams. Fed should have won 30 slams but that was due to chokes mainly. Not injuries. Nadals peak in 2009 was taken away too. Fed and Djokers peak wasn’t taken away due to injuries. All the slams he missed and he still only had 2 less slams than Djoker that didn’t miss much at all.

The only reason Nadal doesn’t have close to double the slams of Djoker is due to injuries.

Nadal should have 40 slams? Really?

Which of the slams that he missed or withdrew from do you think he would have won?

The only ones that stick out to me are 2009 Wimby and maybe 2016 Roland Garros.

2004 RG and UO 2012 perhaps but that's a long shot.
 

Jonas78

Legend
Djokovic missed a few slams when he was healthy and the top favorite to win.

Federer took advantage of the weakest era (2003-2007) in tennis when no any other ATG level player was in contention.
Isnt that pretty irrelevant for this thread? Federer achieved less by taking advantage of 2003-2007?
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Nadal. 1000%.

Another interesting curio: Nadal, I believe, is the only Big 3 member to have ever voluntarily sat out a major.

2020 US Open. He didn’t miss it through injury, didn’t miss it because he was banned or not allowed to attend, or not allowed to fly. He just didn’t go because he couldn’t assure the safety of himself and his team.

The craziest thing about it is that he was defending US Open champion that year, too.

But when it comes to the big 3, these guys were masters at capitalising. They didn’t leave much on the table. To me they define themselves by the half opportunities they grabbed more than the half opportunities they missed. When I think of missed opportunities it’s more for players like Murray and Wawrinka who also had extraordinary talent and occupied the same rarified air as the Big 3 for periods of their career without anything like the same achievements to show for their ability.

You can't say it's Nadal when he hardly ever lost the matches he did play. Harder to do what-if when he doesn't even show up. He also won a few Slams he had no business winning, AO22 comes to mind.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Nadal. 1000%.

Another interesting curio: Nadal, I believe, is the only Big 3 member to have ever voluntarily sat out a major.

2020 US Open. He didn’t miss it through injury, didn’t miss it because he was banned or not allowed to attend, or not allowed to fly. He just didn’t go because he couldn’t assure the safety of himself and his team.

The craziest thing about it is that he was defending US Open champion that year, too.

But when it comes to the big 3, these guys were masters at capitalising. They didn’t leave much on the table. To me they define themselves by the half opportunities they grabbed more than the half opportunities they missed. When I think of missed opportunities it’s more for players like Murray and Wawrinka who also had extraordinary talent and occupied the same rarified air as the Big 3 for periods of their career without anything like the same achievements to show for their ability.
Yeah because his brittle body can't handle surface change.

Nadal sacrificed not a single slam. He was not ready.
 

GoatNo1

Hall of Fame
it is a very big difference between rafas and noles missed slams!

rafa NEVER missed a single RG in his slam winning years. from his first to his last slam. all his missed slams was on low procent winning. he was not favorit at any of them.

nole missed slams as healthy and in top form and as huge favorit!
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
You can't say it's Nadal when he hardly ever lost the matches he did play. Harder to do what-if when he doesn't even show up. He also won a few Slams he had no business winning, AO22 comes to mind.
Just a couple of swings and roundabouts for me when it comes to Nadal. Bit of a sore point for me that either he or Fed doesn’t end up leading the major title count. That honour should rest with either of those two.

But in real terms it really feels to me like the whole of the Big 3 had an innate ability to seize the moment when it arrived. Playing their best when the stakes were highest for the longest period of any group of ATGs is what defines them to me.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
it is a very big difference between rafas and noles missed slams!

rafa NEVER missed a single RG in his slam winning years. from his first to his last slam. all his missed slams was on low procent winning. he was not favorit at any of them.

nole missed slams as healthy and in top form and as huge favorit!
Nadal missed the 2003, 2004 and 2023 French Opens because of injury, and had to pull out during the 2016 French Open because of injury.

The only major that Djokovic has missed due to injury was the 2017 US Open. Counting the 2022 Australian Open and US Open is just absurd, because it was completely in Djokovic's power to play in those events and he chose not to do so.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Partial List of External factors / obstacles Federer dealt with in his early major-winning career window:

- Coach passing away tragically during his formative years on tour
- Changing hardcourts from fast and slick to having surfaces that resembled tar pits, the intended effect to limit the effectiveness of certain shots that were part of his strongest skill set
- Older ATGs active, one of whom was the all-time majors leader and the other who had bloomed after 30+
- Multiple peers with ATG potential, including FOUR peers who won their first major either before Fed did, or the same year that Fed did. One of whom was mentally considered one of the best in the game at that time.
- Multiple younger players with ATG potential, including one whose strongest surface aligned with Fed’s weakest surface.
 

GoatNo1

Hall of Fame
Nadal missed the 2003, 2004 and 2023 French Opens because of injury, and had to pull out during the 2016 French Open because of injury.

The only major that Djokovic has missed due to injury was the 2017 US Open. Counting the 2022 Australian Open and US Open is just absurd, because it was completely in Djokovic's power to play in those events and he chose not to do so.
as i said! in his SLAM WINNING years he NEVER missed a single RG. he won his first slam in 2005 and last one in 2022!
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Nadal should have 40 slams? Really?

Which of the slams that he missed or withdrew from do you think he would have won?

The only ones that stick out to me are 2009 Wimby and maybe 2016 Roland Garros.

2004 RG and UO 2012 perhaps but that's a long shot.


If we are talking about slams that they missed, Djokovic had a faaaaaaar better chance at AO 2022 than Nadal at any of the slams he missed. USO 2022 probably as well.

And not the same situation but Wimbledon 2020 being canceled was far worse for Djokovic than the other two (or any other player) for obvious reasons.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
as i said! in his SLAM WINNING years he NEVER missed a single RG. he won his first slam in 2005 and last one in 2022!
Nadal was near automatic at RG. There is no record like it in tennis. Even in years when he was below par, injured or both he could often still win the event, such was his mental and physical stranglehold in Paris.

Any of the years that he missed playing RG, few as they are, are definitely up for discussion as a missed opportunity by anyone who has watched tennis in the last 20 years because of the record Nadal built there. Even more so given that he won the event at his first trying, was already very good on clay prior to his first RG, and proved that he could win the event even while injured at past 30yo+.

The tipping point in the discussion is whether or not you consider missing through injury a missed opportunity, given that injury could be considered an external factor beyond the player’s control and somewhat different to missed match points, upsets etc etc.

I can see either side of the injury argument. Sometimes a player is badly injured, other times it might still be viewed as a missed opportunity if the decision not to play was overly cautious.
 

zakopinjo

Professional
Nadal missed a lot more majors through injury. 15 by my count, compared to 1 for Djokovic. Federer famously didn't miss a major in the 21st century until the 2016 French Open.
However, he never missed Roland Garros. Now, why in most cases he sacrificed other slams for the sake of success at RG is a question for him and his professional team.

Fed had to deal with two YOUNGER ATGs. Nadal and Djokovic did not. Ergo, easy answer.
Federer literally profited with 11 Slams won due to the lack of competition off clay from 2004-2007, so he's certainly not the pick.

Nadal should have at least 25 Major titles, easily.
:(
I don't see how, he even got 1 free slam, which under normal circumstances he would never have won.
 

AndrewUtz

Semi-Pro
only true answer is djokovic. Djokovic didn’t compete in slams that he was a true contender (and favorite for) because of a disqualification and not being vaxxed. Fed should’ve racked up more slams at the beginning of his career but the question is CLOULD HAVE not SHOULD HAVE.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
However, he never missed Roland Garros.
Incorrect. Nadal missed the 2003, 2004 and 2023 French Opens because of injury, and had to pull out of the 2016 French Open because of injury as well.

Please do better research. The 2003 French Open was supposed to be Nadal's debut in a major. His debut in a major ended up being 2003 Wimbledon instead.
 

zakopinjo

Professional
Incorrect. Nadal missed the 2003, 2004 and 2023 French Opens because of injury, and had to pull out of the 2016 French Open because of injury as well.

Please do better research. The 2003 French Open was supposed to be Nadal's debut in a major. His debut in a major ended up being 2003 Wimbledon instead.
Why are you counting 2003 and 2004? I guess it is counted from the year when it became standard and competitive on the tour, and that is certainly 2005.
 

inflation_era

Professional
However, he never missed Roland Garros. Now, why in most cases he sacrificed other slams for the sake of success at RG is a question for him and his professional team.


Federer literally profited with 11 Slams won due to the lack of competition off clay from 2004-2007, so he's certainly not the pick.


I don't see how, he even got 1 free slam, which under normal circumstances he would never have won.

What lack of competition? You mean Roddick and Safin who own Djokovic?
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
What lack of competition? You mean Roddick and Safin who own Djokovic?
People who started watching tennis later don’t seem to understand how much pressure Federer was under from his peers at the early stages of his major winning run or how deep the competition actually was before he broke through. It’s almost like they think Fed Waltz into an empty landscape and cleaned up.

They only have a concept of the Federer conquered landscape (and the players in that landscape) after Fed had worked his arse off and achieved a pattern of dominance and they use revisionist history against him.

The fact that Fed became dominant seems to be a mark against him, as if the guys who were his peers were no good, but the proof was there of the quality of the field. These guys either had a head start on Fed and either won a major or multiple majors before him (Safin, Hewitt, JCF), were breaking through and winning majors at exactly the same time as him (Roddick), or were dangerous floaters with a winning head to head against him who had already been in a major final (Nalbandian).

And these younger guys were proving themselves by overthrowing the old guard. Hewitt had unlocked the key of Agassi and Sampras and basically killed S&V tennis, Federer stopped Sampras in his lounge room at Wimbledon, and Safin beat Sampras in a US Open, something that, up to that point, only Edberg had Done. Agassi literally won the AO in the same year GOATerer won his first Wimbledon and Agassi was still a threat on hardcourt for at least 3 more years.
 
Last edited:

FlyingSaucer

Semi-Pro
Djokovic missed a few slams when he was healthy and the top favorite to win.

Federer took advantage of the weakest era (2003-2007) in tennis when no any other ATG level player was in contention.
Played Nadal multiple times in slams in that period.
 

Robert F

Hall of Fame
By ‘achieved less than they could have’ I’d like to add in some structure to the discussion by only focusing on circumstances they can control.

In this case it’s either Federer - who wasted so many opportunities from winning positions, all of which have been listed in the OP.

Or Djokovic, who could have complied with border entry requirements and controlled his anger better to participate in more slams where he would be the massive favorite.

Even if Nadal missed the most slams, he didn’t really have control over his injuries and they were always going to happen without freak durability.
You could argue that you can control injuries.
Maybe Fed and Djokovic used training regiments that reduced injury risk, played a schedule to maximize recovery and made strategic decisions on court when to go for broke and when to take it easy.

You could argue Nadal chose a style that was hard on his body and if wiser could've given 80% on points he was going to loose instead of 120% on every point.
Also, we have seen Spanish training focus on hours on court feeding repetition whereas Fed had a more focused practice. Maybe if Nadal decreased his training volume and intensity a notch, he would have had less injuries.

Of course, those changes might also change the way he was on court.

Probably Djokovic had the most autonomy in regards to his participation in slams. Fed wasting opportunities from winning positions sure is possible, but also depends on his opponent. Djoker's only opponent was his own ego
 
Top