Big 3 Grand Slam Titles by Difficulty

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
Great, write why you think so.IMO Fed is out of question, as soon as some competition came up, he started loosing. So you can't say he had it tougher,because he never won slam beating Nadal and Djokovic at the same tournament. There can be discussion between Nadal and Djokovic. For Nadal strong case is he never had it easy, as soon as Fed started declining,Djokovic came in. But he lost his last final againts Fed in 2017. He was 30/31, Fed was 35/36. Not winning a set against Djokovic on hard since 2013. His only strongforce is clay and he defended it really well but competition on clay in this millennium was laughable (Fed and Nole being his best competition). On the other hand we have Djokovic. Specialised in hard courts, most people play their best tennis on that surface. Had grass court GOAT to compete againts on Wimbledon, had clay court GOAT to compete againts on RG, and on his best surface had biggest competition. As soon as Djokovic came out of story,Fed suddenly ressurected and started winning slams again. As soon as Djokovic returned,Fed stopped winning slams again. Nadal hasn't won AO since 2009, Wimbledon since 2010. I only assume that you couldn't differentiate between toughest competition and toughest slams won, as both Nadal and Federer didn't win that much after Djokovic came in in 2011.
Touchdown
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
With AO16 on top, you get confused whether it's the strongest or the weakest first :oops:

Baby Chung, baby Halys, Seppi, Nishikori in straights. Then the terrible match against Simon. Then a very strong match against Federer. Then a final against a so-so Murray in straights.
 

BVSlam

Professional
You would have to say, objectively speaking, these figures are pretty damning for Roger Federer. The pattern is rock solid: Djokovic has had the most difficult slam victories, Nadal is in the middle and Roger has had things easy, relatively speaking.
What a surprise. Our otherwise so objective and critical favourite lady from the 19th century now all of a sudden takes random numbers on "difficulty" for granted. Absolutely shocking! Does your factfulness have any limits?
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
The list is flawed but the order of who had it the hardest is correct. I don't know why that's a sensitive subject or why people get defensive about it. It really boils down to this...

Top 5 wins in their 20 Slam wins
1. Djokovic - 28
2. Nadal - 24
3. Federer - 19

Top 10 wins is one thing, but beating the top 5 is usually as hard as it gets in a Slam and Djokovic just beat those players the most.
Rublev is currently a Top 5 player, which invalidates use of Top 5 as a criteria to indicate difficulty.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
So was Ljubicic and Blake.
Yes, but peak Ljubicic 2006 was arguably the best clay court player in the world aside from Rafa, and peak Blake dominated #2 Nadal in a slam and had winning head to head against him before he got old.

In any case, you helped make my original point!
 

Milanez82

Hall of Fame
Yes, but peak Ljubicic 2006 was arguably the best clay court player in the world aside from Rafa, and peak Blake dominated #2 Nadal in a slam and had winning head to head against him before he got old.

In any case, you helped make my original point!
What about peak Tipsarevic
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
This is only in the Slams they won

AO
1. Djokovic - 16
2. Federer - 5
3. Nadal - 1

RG
1. Nadal - 18
2. Djokovic - 3
3. Federer - 1

W
1. Federer - 7
2. Djokovic - 5
3. Nadal - 2

USO
1. Federer - 6
2. Djokovic - 4
3. Nadal - 3
Thanks.So, as I suspected, Fed is very well placed at Wimbledon and the US Open and actually decent at the AO too :) Nadal is well above everyone at the French, but on the last place at the other 3 slams.Djokovic indeed shines at the AO, well above everyone.

Fed detractors have done such a poor job over the years, lol
 
Last edited:

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, but peak Ljubicic 2006 was arguably the best clay court player in the world aside from Rafa, and peak Blake dominated #2 Nadal in a slam and had winning head to head against him before he got old.

In any case, you helped make my original point!
How was Ljubicic the best clay court player in 2006? He never even won a clay title in his career and got past the 4th round at RG only once. He didn't even do much in the 2006 clay season before RG. Fair enough about Blake but Gonzalez, Ferrer and Youhzny also were beating Nadal in hardcourt Slams back then.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
How was Ljubicic the best clay court player in 2006? He never even won a clay title in his career and got past the 4th round at RG only once. He didn't even do much in the c2006 clay season before RG. Fair enough about Blake but Gonzalez, Ferrer and Youhzny also were beating Nadal in hardcourt Slams back then.
If it wasn’t for Nadal, nobody would have stopped the dome from winning the FO. Undefeated in sets against Fed on clay.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
If it wasn’t for Nadal, nobody would have stopped the dome from winning the FO.
Federer would have easily beaten Ljubicic at 2006 RG. I fail to see who he even beat on clay in 2006 that would make him a threat for the title. He had a very easy draw at RG which is why he made the SF.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
Federer would have easily beaten Ljubicic at 2006 RG. I fail to see who he even beat on clay in 2006 that would make him a threat for the title. He had a very easy draw at RG which is why he made the SF.
Fed beats Lube on hardcourt, but clay different story.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Great, write why you think so.IMO Fed is out of question, as soon as some competition came up, he started loosing.
So you expect Federer to win 3 slams per year forever when Djokodal never had any kind of sustained dominance for consecutive seasons?

Djokovic was 6-7 in slam finals at age 27 and since then has been 14-4. So once tge competition got weaker, Djoker started being dominant again, that's undeniable.

So you can't say he had it tougher,because he never won slam beating Nadal and Djokovic at the same tournament.
He was 1 point away at 38, so it's not like he never had the ability. He also barely had a handful of opportunities.

For Nadal strong case is he never had it easy,
Half of his slams have been easy.

On the other hand we have Djokovic. Specialised in hard courts, most people play their best tennis on that surface. Had grass court GOAT to compete againts on Wimbledon
Grass GOAT in his mid to late 30's who played his first Wimb final against Djokovic 11 years after he first won Wimb and never played him on grass before he was almost 31.

But I forgot, old Agassi was a broken back old man who could barely walk, while old Fed was at his peak. Sorry, carry on.

had clay court GOAT to compete againts on RG
So did Federer.

As soon as Djokovic came out of story,Fed suddenly ressurected and started winning slams again. As soon as Djokovic returned,Fed stopped winning slams again.
Except Fed's struggles in 2018 had nothing to do with Djokovic and he only reached 1 more major final after winning his last slam. Then he had a career ending injury which again has nothing to do with Djokovic.

But I forgot. Federer never declines and never has health issues. If he struggles, it's only because the competition exposed him for the weak era fraud that he is.

Nadal hasn't won AO since 2009, Wimbledon since 2010. I only assume that you couldn't differentiate between toughest competition and toughest slams won, as both Nadal and Federer didn't win that much after Djokovic came in in 2011.
Fed was 29.5 when Djokovic reached his peak so of course he didn't win much when he was in his 30's for almost the entire 2010's decade. Djokovic also didn't win much in 2007-2013 when Fedal were better and weren't old/declined.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
He won most of his Slams when Djokovic and Nadal weren't both in the top 3 though so that's not it.

I don't see how anybody can argue that Federer had it the toughest, point blank.
Why do both have to be? Nadal was no.2 already when Fed only had 5 slams. And in the 2010's it was obviously much harder for the older Fed to score top 3 wins than for Djokodal. We're talking about 10 years here.

I'm not arguing Fed had it the toughest. In my view competition has evened out for all 3 of them. But to decide that Djokovic and Nadal had it tougher just based on a cherry picked top 3 criteria is laughable. You're basically dismissing genuine difficult slams for Federer just because he didn't beat a top 3 player, while rewarding Djokodal for easier slams just because they did. You're basically ignoring level of play altogether
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Looking at only top 3 oppnents is how you end up with bollocks like AO 2016 being the toughest slam win lol.
And AO 2017 getting dismissed.

Heck, Nadal actually wins here since he scored a win over Raonic, while Fed only beat no.4 Stan.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Why do both have to be? Nadal was no.2 already when Fed only had 5 slams. And in the 2010's it was obviously much harder for the older Fed to score top 3 wins than for Djokodal. We're talking about 10 years here.

I'm not arguing Fed had it the toughest. In my view competition has evened out for all 3 of them. But to decide that Djokovic and Nadal had it tougher just based on a cherry picked top 3 criteria is laughable. You're basically dismissing genuine difficult slams for Federer just because he didn't beat a top 3 player, while rewarding Djokodal for easier slams just because they did. You're basically ignoring level of play altogether
But you brought up that his numbers are lower because of Djokodal. Djokodal weren't a factor in hardcourt Slams from 2004-2007, except Djokovic at 2007 USO.

I'm not ignoring anything really and keeping it objective and simple. To me clear it's clear Djokovic and Nadal peaked in a tougher era than Federer's peak, which is why the numbers are in their favor. Federer beat 6 top three players from 2004-2007 in Slams he won. Djokovic beat 4 in 2011 alone, and 6 total in 2011 and 2012 if you count RG.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Don't think Rublev will improve much tbh. Feels like a standard top 10 filler player. Like this era's Berdych but worse.
It's still early but we will see, but he doesn't look as multi-dimensional as his counterparts but neither was Blake. Lol
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
But you brought up that his numbers are lower because of Djokodal. Djokodal weren't a factor in hardcourt Slams from 2004-2007, except Djokovic at 2007 USO.

I'm not ignoring anything really and keeping it objective and simple. To me clear it's clear Djokovic and Nadal peaked in a tougher era than Federer's peak, which is why the numbers are in their favor. Federer beat 6 top three players from 2004-2007 in Slams he won. Djokovic beat 4 in 2011 alone, and 6 total in 2011 and 2012 if you count RG.
Again with this cherry picked criteria.... And why only HC slams?

Restricting this only to top 3 is still laughable, sorry.

Yes, Djokodal peaked in a tougher era (except 2010 and 2014-2015), but we're talking about entire careers here at this point with all of them tied at 20. Djokovic in particular accumulated most of his numbers in 2011-2021 when it was harder for Federer to obtain many top 3 wins. Djokovic's numbers are what they are because he also won many slams past his prime, which Fed couldn't do.

Not to mention that his numbers are what they are thanks to 2014-present, which isn't a tough era at all.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
It's still early but we will see, but he doesn't look as multi-dimensional as his counterparts but neither was Blake. Lol
Yeah Blake's gameplan was basic af lol. His main problem was between the ears IMO, he was very quick, big shots off both wings, good return he just lacked the killer instinct and tennis IQ to put it to good use. He also broke his neck, not sure if it gave him any lasting problems.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Again with this cherry picked criteria.... And why only HC slams?

Restricting this only to top 3 is still laughable, sorry.

Yes, Djokodal peaked in a tougher era (except 2010 and 2014-2015), but we're talking about entire careers here at this point with all of them tied at 20. Djokovic in particular accumulated most of his numbers in 2011-2021 when it was harder for Federer to obtain many top 3 wins. Djokovic's numbers are what they are because he also won many slams past his prime, which Fed couldn't do.

Not to mention that his numbers are what they are thanks to 2014-present, which isn't a tough era at all.
Because I'm showing the flaw in what you said. You said he couldn't he get more wins because they were in his way, but they were really weren't in 2004-2007 outside of clay. Nadal faced him in 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon, but I would say only 2007 Wimbledon was where he was was a threat. So from 2004-2007, only 2007 Wimbledon and 2007 USO were they really a factor. That's 11 Slams where they were not.

Well if you have something better and just as objective, then let's debate on it.

Djokovic won many Slams past his prime? I don't agree with that because I'm not limiting what Djokovic's prime is, based on what TTW thinks it should be.

There was nothing wrong with 2014 and 2015 as far as strength of the years. It was 2016 when things started going downhill.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
Three of Rafa's RG runs at #2, #3 and #6. The most dominant player on a surface ever...

This list is strange and AO16 is the strangest...
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Because I'm showing the flaw in what you said. You said he couldn't he get more wins because they were in his way, but they were really weren't in 2004-2007 outside of clay. Nadal faced him in 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon, but I would say only 2007 Wimbledon was where he was was a threat. So from 2004-2007, only 2007 Wimbledon and 2007 USO were they really a factor.
By that logic, Nadal wasn't much of a factor at 2011 Wimb and Federer wasn't at 2012 RG and especially Nadal wasn't at 2019 AO.

And who said anything about 2004-2007? I'm talking entire careers here. Djokovic doesn't have his current numbers just thanks to 2011 LOL. Federer lost 10 years worth of majors because of those 2.

Well if you have something better and just as objective, then let's debate on it.
Federer beat non-top 3 players who were better or just as good as some top 3 players Djokovic defeated. Don't see why those wins should be dismissed. Tennis is comprised of more than just the top 3.

You're basically rewarding Nadal for his cakewalk draws in his first 2 USO's, despite Fed's first 3 USO's being clearly stronger, just because the former beat a sub par top 3 player. That's just to give you an example.

Djokovic won may Slams past his prime? I don't agree with that because I'm not limiting what Djokovic's prime is based on what TTW thinks it should be.
So you think Djokovic has still been in his prime in 2018-2021?

There was nothing wrong with 2014 and 2015 as far as strength of the years. It was 2016 when things started going downhill.
Just like there was nothing wrong with 2004, 2005 and 2007 strength wise.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah Blake's gameplan was basic af lol. His main problem was between the ears IMO, he was very quick, big shots off both wings, good return he just lacked the killer instinct and tennis IQ to put it to good use. He also broke his neck, not sure if it gave him any lasting problems.
I enjoyed watching him but he was very frustrating to watch, especially because he was from the US and I was rooting for him in a lot of matches. He was too much of ballbasher and to be such a smart guy, his tennis IQ did not match his overall intelligence. I forgot about the boken neck and can't remember when it happened.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
By that logic, Nadal wasn't much of a factor at 2011 Wimb and Federer wasn't at 2012 RG and especially Nadal wasn't at 2019 AO.

And who said anything about 2004-2007? I'm talking entire careers here. Djokovic doesn't have his current numbers just thanks to 2011 LOL. Federer lost 10 years worth of majors because of those 2.


Federer beat non-top 3 players who were better or just as good as some top 3 players Djokovic defeated. Don't see why those wins should be dismissed. Tennis is comprised of more than just the top 3.

You're basically rewarding Nadal for his cakewalk draws in his first 2 USO's, despite Fed's first 3 USO's being clearly stronger, just because the former beat a sub par top 3 player. That's just to give you an example.


So you think Djokovic has still been in his prime in 2018-2021?


Just like there was nothing wrong with 2004, 2005 and 2007 strength wise.
You're going off the deep end here. There is a huge difference from facing 2006 Nadal than 2011 Nadal, when he was already a twice Wimbledon champion and won the last two he played. Experience plays a huge role in tennis and you know that. Federer lost 10 years of majors because Djokovic and Nadal? Umm..ok.

Ok so name these players instead of complaining about how unfair it is. I never said it was foolproof but it is an objective stat, that usually proves to be true.

Federer's first 3 USO's are clearly stronger and his 2007 USO win, is far more impressive than any of Nadal's USO's. The stats actually lay this out though because he beat three top 5 players.

Arguably, yes.

2005 and 2007 had good strength in both years.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I enjoyed watching him but he was very frustrating to watch, especially because he was from the US and I was rooting for him in a lot of matches. He was too much of ballbasher and to be such a smart guy, his tennis IQ did not match his overall intelligence. I forgot about the boken neck and can't remember when it happened.
It was 2004 which sounds like a rough year...

2004 was a difficult year for Blake. In May, while practicing with Robby Ginepri for the Masters event in Rome, he broke his neck when he slipped on the clay and collided with the net post. Blake fractured his seventh vertebra, but did not sustain any nerve damage and was ultimately able to make a full recovery from the injury. In July, his father died of stomach cancer. At the same time, Blake developed shingles, which temporarily paralyzed half his face and blurred his vision.[/QUOTE]

I liked him when he was on, quite the shoemaker. Think he should have done more.
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
Great, but I ask you who had it tougher in your opinion? Fed or Djokovic? IMO Djokovic and I pointed out why. I am honestly interested in your perspective, if it doesn't bother you to write it. I never said Fed it easy, or an weak era stuff, just stated that Djokovic had it far tougher compared to other two
Over the course of their careers? Or as far as one particular year?
 

T007

Professional
Yes, I agree with that, but who had it tougher then him among Big 3? Murray was good player, and his style was great match against Djokovic's too
Murray was never a threat...look at his record VS big 3 in slams not so good
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
The Adjusted By Difficulty approach reminds me of things like Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and disinfectants.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Yes, I agree with that, but who had it tougher then him among Big 3? Murray was good player, and his style was great match against Djokovic's too
Nadal played his entire prime during the primes of other great players. Federer got a couple of easier years before Nadal fully arrived and Djokovic has been feasting during late prime/post-prime as the youngest elite talent on tour at 34 years old lmao
 
Top