Context On Djokovic

[duaneeo]

After winning 2008 AO, Nole didn't win another slam (and won only 3 Masters) for 3 years. And against such quiver-with-fear competition.

I guess this is additional context on Djokovic: lapses. Won his first slam, but won his second slam 3 years later. Won 3 slams in one year, then won 3 slams over the next 3 years. Won 4 consecutive slams, then went slam-less for two years. Luckily for him, with no threat from the younger players, he's been able to again return to dominance after a lapse.

 

[CYGS]

After winning 2008 AO, Nole didn't win another slam (and won only 3 Masters) for 3 years. And against such quiver-with-fear competition.

I guess this is additional context on Djokovic: lapses. Won his first slam, but won his second slam 3 years later. Won 3 slams in one year, then won 3 slams over the next 3 years. Won 4 consecutive slams, then went slam-less for two years. Luckily for him, with no threat from the younger players, he's been able to again return to dominance after a lapse.

You wish, not guess.

 

[Crisstti]

To be fair Federer didn't really have to face a player like that till 2008 either. I think saying roddick and hewitt are bums is wrong, they likely would have won 4-5 slams each without fed but they weren't better than let's say Murray.

And likewise who did Nadal face on clay? He didn't have to face a strong clay court specialist like brugera or kuerten.

Federer is probably a tougher opponent than Kuerten and of course, Bruguera. That they were clay specialists does not mean they were better clay players than Fed (or Novak) are/were. How would such specialists have fared had they had to play Rafa on clay?. How would Fed have fared if he hadn't?.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

After winning 2008 AO, Nole didn't win another slam (and won only 3 Masters) for 3 years. And against such quiver-with-fear competition.

I guess this is additional context on Djokovic: lapses. Won his first slam, but won his second slam 3 years later. Won 3 slams in one year, then won 3 slams over the next 3 years. Won 4 consecutive slams, then went slam-less for two years. Luckily for him, with no threat from the younger players, he's been able to again return to dominance after a lapse.

That was Federer's reaction rather, not mine. The point was they are nowhere near ATGs. Nobody is even disagreeing that today's youngsters are quite disappointing. But don't try to pretend like Fed regularly needed Herculean efforts to beat his peers. He was making a mockery of them so many times (to his credit obviously) but they weren't extraordinary. I reckon a dominant ATG like Novak would have dominated them too (and the same applies for Fed if he peaked in this decade of course).

I guess it's a lot better when majority of what a player has achieved in a (very long) career fits into 4 and a half consecutive seasons, then we can excuse any minor drop on the dreaded decline. Even though his younger two opponents who arrived are way better than all of his peers have ever been, but we can just consider these two guys' impact on the results to be minimal, no?

The recent luck is only fair because he had the toughest time breaking through. Older and peer ATG not allowing anyone to breathe for years, and he had to get the better of them. That's something Federer wasn't up against when he arrived on the top scene. And the recent luck is only fair because it was his most recent lapse + the same lack of youngsters you speak of that helped those two guys ending their Slam droughts that lasted for years.

To sum up, I think their current totals are a better reflection than back when Fed/Rafa led by 8/5 or more Majors in the more distant past.

 

[King No1e]

The weak era enthusiasts need to shut up now. Federer didn't have much competition from older players, sure. But he's stayed relevant through the entire careers of legends 5 years younger. And those 5-year-younger players haven't had a SINGLE player younger than them challenge for the top spots in tennis. The closest so far have been Dimitrov, Raonic, and Cilic, and they have a combined 1 Grand Slam between them. Fed may have had it comparatively easy (I'd argue not even that, as his pre-07 field was pretty average for most eras) in his early career but Nadal and Djokovic are certainly having it easy in their late careers.

 

[swordtennis]

The weak era enthusiasts need to shut up now. Federer didn't have much competition from older players, sure. But he's stayed relevant through the entire careers of legends 5 years younger. And those 5-year-younger players haven't had a SINGLE player younger than them challenge for the top spots in tennis. The closest so far have been Dimitrov, Raonic, and Cilic, and they have a combined 1 Grand Slam between them. Fed may have had it comparatively easy (I'd argue not even that, as his pre-07 field was pretty average for most eras) in his early career but Nadal and Djokovic are certainly having it easy in their late careers.

Fed fans feel fed is goat yet an eazy week era champion and opponent. Theyz got allz bases covered no use fighting the borg! Just root for the noler to clean up and hope lots of whiners bridge jump.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The weak era enthusiasts need to shut up now. Federer didn't have much competition from older players, sure. But he's stayed relevant through the entire careers of legends 5 years younger. And those 5-year-younger players haven't had a SINGLE player younger than them challenge for the top spots in tennis. The closest so far have been Dimitrov, Raonic, and Cilic, and they have a combined 1 Grand Slam between them. Fed may have had it comparatively easy (I'd argue not even that, as his pre-07 field was pretty average for most eras) in his early career but Nadal and Djokovic are certainly having it easy in their late careers.

That is too easy.

The period of the so called "weak era" featured Nadal in his best/some of his best years throughout its entirety and Federer was stopped from a 3 times RG champion in the only edition of RG that didn't feature a match against Nadal. It also features the three best consecutive years on grass for Nadal. It also featured several former #1s and mostly HC specialists with huge games all in or close to their absolute peaks. Competition coming from different levels. It also lasted 5 years.

Federer was 26 when his peak was cut short by the mono and his more tame domination started. Djokovic was 26 in .... 2013. Accidentally I consider the period after 2013 the beginning of the weakest era as far as competition from the younger generations is concerned. Those two eras are incomparable in the scope, decidedly in favour (in a negative way) of the 2014 - current period ... Unprecedented void of young generations ATGs plus unfathomably slowed down conditions.

So, the "weak era" will be talked about often ..... only .... not about the one some would like to imagine.

 

[Crisstti]

The weak era enthusiasts need to shut up now. Federer didn't have much competition from older players, sure. But he's stayed relevant through the entire careers of legends 5 years younger. And those 5-year-younger players haven't had a SINGLE player younger than them challenge for the top spots in tennis. The closest so far have been Dimitrov, Raonic, and Cilic, and they have a combined 1 Grand Slam between them. Fed may have had it comparatively easy (I'd argue not even that, as his pre-07 field was pretty average for most eras) in his early career but Nadal and Djokovic are certainly having it easy in their late careers.

Nadal and Djokovic have each other.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Nadal and Djokovic have each other.

False.

The best trilogy of years on clay plus grass combined for Nadal happened before Djokovic was a serious factor. Also, in the last 6 years Federer has played more Majors finals vs Djokovic than Nadal, so effectively Federer got shortchanged from both with the exception of the period between AO2011 and AO 2012 (and even there he played a pivotal role agains Djokovic).

 

[BH40love]

So, Fed won a total of 1 slam in Djokovic era. Pretty good for a GOAT, right guys?

Fed won 2017 Aus Open and Wimby. Djokovic lost 2nd round to Istomin, pretty good for a GOAT, right guys ??

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That was Federer's reaction rather, not mine. The point was they are nowhere near ATGs. Nobody is even disagreeing that today's youngsters are quite disappointing. But don't try to pretend like Fed regularly needed Herculean efforts to beat his peers. He was making a mockery of them so many times (to his credit obviously) but they weren't extraordinary. I reckon a dominant ATG like Novak would have dominated them too (and the same applies for Fed if he peaked in this decade of course).

I guess it's a lot better when majority of what a player has achieved in a (very long) career fits into 4 and a half consecutive seasons, then we can excuse any minor drop on the dreaded decline. Even though his younger two opponents who arrived are way better than all of his peers have ever been, but we can just consider these two guys' impact on the results to be minimal, no?

The recent luck is only fair because he had the toughest time breaking through. Older and peer ATG not allowing anyone to breathe for years, and he had to get the better of them. That's something Federer wasn't up against when he arrived on the top scene. And the recent luck is only fair because it was his most recent lapse + the same lack of youngsters you speak of that helped those two guys ending their Slam droughts that lasted for years.

To sum up, I think their current totals are a better reflection than back when Fed/Rafa led by 8/5 or more Majors in the more distant past.

If Novak couldn't dominate Murray what makes you think he would dominate Fed's major winning peers?

He'd obviously always lead the H2H but a main factor for why a guy like Roddick constantly lost was not his ability, but his match-up problem VS Federer.

He has a better H2H against Nadal for example (as many wins but far fewer losses).

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Nadal and Djokovic have each other.

Calling RG 15 or AO 19 Nadal serious competition would be utterly preposterous. That leaves one competitive BO5 match between them since 2014. A legendary match no doubt, but only one in five years.

 

[duaneeo]

Nadal and Djokovic have each other.

Nadal and peak/prime Djokovic had each other for a year (Wimbledon 2011 to Roland Garros 2012). Over the 7 years since that time, they've met once at Wimbledon, once at the US Open, and once at the Australian Open.

 

[King No1e]

Calling RG 15 or AO 19 Nadal serious competition would be utterly preposterous. That leaves one competitive BO5 match between them since 2014. A legendary match no doubt, but only one in five years.

2019 Nadal wasn't serious competition??? He had just lost #1 after an injured spell and then crushed everyone until the final.

Djokovic knows he owns AO, so he came out firing and Nadal didn't. End of story.

 

[Crisstti]

Nadal and peak/prime Djokovic had each other for a year (Wimbledon 2011 to Roland Garros 2012). Over the 7 years since that time, they've met once at Wimbledon, once at the US Open, and once at the Australian Open.

One year? they've met lot more often than than at slam finals, where one of them has stopped the other from winning the title (that the other player was probably winning if playing the final vs a lesser player).

Calling RG 15 or AO 19 Nadal serious competition would be utterly preposterous. That leaves one competitive BO5 match between them since 2014. A legendary match no doubt, but only one in five years.

You're considering it just from Novak's perspective (and considering only slams). Rafa for example was winning that AO finl against most other players.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

2019 Nadal wasn't serious competition??? He had just lost #1 after an injured spell and then crushed everyone until the final.

Djokovic knows he owns AO, so he came out firing and Nadal didn't. End of story.

No. That doesn't diminish Djokovic's own great level, obviously.

Some other examples of great players playing dummy in slam finals: 1984 Wimbledon, 1991 USO, 2004 USO, 2008 RG. In cases like this, I'm giving the winners huge credit for exceptional tennis they produced at the pinnacle level of the sport, while their competition score is zero for the final. Can't have your cake and eat it too, that's simply illogical and biased. Level is more important than competition (since you control the former but not the latter) so they aren't losing appreciation for it.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

You're considering it just from Novak's perspective (and considering only slams).
Rafa for example was winning that AO final against most other players.

Nadal's final result shows his level wasn't fit to win slams unless especially weak. Sure, he'd have probably won if Djokovic vanished from the draw, but it would've been an extremely weak tournament then. When the loss isn't even remotely competitive like their multiple four-set finals let alone the legendary AO '12 epic, it's fine to say Nadal was stopped by his own insufficient level most of all, rather than an ombillible opponent zoning on fire to topple him. A high quality loss is easily more impressive than a mug win like that; I don't have to think twice before rating Nadal's AO 12 quite a bit greater than USO 17, yes he won the latter but in 2012 Berdych alone was much tougher than the entire 2017 draw, and then Nadal faced Federer and Djokovic and nearly won.

As for non-slams, many matches yes, but again one of the two was in mug form for all of them after RG '14. Rome '16 was the only one where the loser played well for more than a set.

 

[veroniquem]

While we are still in the throws of debating the greatest and "betterness" of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, since the Wimbledon Final; I wanted to provide a little context for Djokovic's relative dominance since 2011. When Djokovic won his FIRST major in 2008 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 12 Majors. Now pay attention to this next part, because it's quite eye opening... When Djokovic finally won his SECOND Major in 2011 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 16 Majors!! and Nadal had 9!! This is very very telling. Federer was 30, with more majors than anyone in history, and Nadal was in the middle of his utter clay court dominance with 2 lifetimes worth of tennis miles on his legs. At this time, Djokovic was emerging into his absolute prime of mid 20's with a more solid tennis game than we'd ever seen. There is no way to take that away from him, but the above has to provide a little context into his major tally from 2011. Could we really expect Federer or Nadal to keep winning at the same clip? NO, and there are many factors to this... age, hunger, life, a player like Djokovic, and etc. So... we really can't say for sure what this all would look like unless they all begun to start winning around the same time. Every discussion that begins with Djokovic's prowess over Federer has to begin with the acknowledgement that Federer had 16 MAJORS (most all time) before Djokovic won his second. That's crazy. None of this diminishes Djokovic.. he has the most solid game of all time. However, when he reached his early 30's, he did not, and still does not have a 25-26 year old player with comparable abilities breathing down his neck. Instead, he's still fighting the old guys he chased down... Federer and Nadal. Isn't that something.

Hum Djoko and Nadal are almost the same age (less than 12 months difference). Fed is the only "old guy" in this story. (Mind you Nadalovic are no spring flowers at this point in time...)

 

[veroniquem]

Nadal and Djokovic have each other.

+ Murray for a long time.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

If Novak couldn't dominate Murray what makes you think he would dominate Fed's major winning peers?

He'd obviously always lead the H2H but a main factor for why a guy like Roddick constantly lost was not his ability, but his match-up problem VS Federer.

He has a better H2H against Nadal for example (as many wins but far fewer losses).

Murray was better than all of those guys.

And sure Novak couldn't dominate, I mean 25-11 and 8-2 in Slams is pretty much dead even.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

+ Murray for a long time.

At this point anyone should have warmed up to the idea that Murray represents to the big three a different match up, rather than that he is as high profile competitor as some of his results show. If he has a good match up against anyone of them then his quality kicks in and he can be at times major trouble. If he doesn't, he is toast.

That doesn't make him any less of a player as his results clearly show, but the discrepancies between some of his results are quite stark, to be honest. Beating Novak at Wimbledon, but losing against Nadal has got to be the perfect example of that.

 

[N01E]

Fed won 2017 Aus Open and Wimby. Djokovic lost 2nd round to Istomin, pretty good for a GOAT, right guys ??

What? An ATG losing in an upset. Has that ever happened in tennis history before?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

One year? they've met lot more often than than at slam finals, where one of them has stopped the other from winning the title (that the other player was probably winning if playing the final vs a lesser player).

Since 2010 Federer has played Djokovic 22 times on HC and 4 times on grass
Since 2010 Nadal has played Djokovic 14 times on HC and 2 times on grass

You were saying?

 

[Pantera]

Thank the tennis gods djokovic 2011 arrived. Nadal would have prob 5 wimbledons. Hail to the king!

Why would you have had an issue with Nadal owning Wimbledon over Federer? You would still get to read all the butt hurt online comments for entertainment

 

[Pantera]

But the difference is, when Sampras was winning his slams, there were tons of different slam winners happening.
When he won his first slam at the USO 1990, up till his last in 2002, there were several different slam winners. Its not like he was in a 3 horse race with 2 guys older than him like Djokovic is.
From 91 Becker, Courier, Stich, Edberg, Agassi, Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda, Moya, Safin, Ivanisevic, Johansson, Costa and Hewitt all won a slam, with some winning a couple or more, right up till Sampras won his last.

Now don't tell me that Federer or Djokovic remotely faced this kind of challenge.
Sampras had way more dangerous players to play back then. The names on that list are unreal, yet in Djokovic's career when he started dominating, all he faced were an aging or absent Nadal and Federer, plus Andy Murray.

Agree about Sampras, he had hardest era of all time Had he managed to reach even one RG final I might have bestowed GOAThood on him

 

[duaneeo]

Looking a year of births:

Djokovic (1987) met a younger player in a slam final 1 time (Del Potro, 1988).

Borg (1956) met a younger player in a slam final 5 times: McEnroe (1959, 4 times) and Lendl (1960).

Sampras (1971) met a younger player in a slam final 5 times: Rafter (1972), Chang (1972), Moya (1976), Safin (1980), Hewitt (1981).

Nadal (1986) met a younger player in a slam final 10 times: Djokovic (1987, 8 times) and Thiem (1993, 2 times).

Federer (1981) met a younger player in a slam final 26 times: Roddick (1982, 4 times), Soderling (1984), Baghdatis (1985), Nadal (1986, 9 times), Djokovic (1987, 5 times), Murray (1987, 3 times), Cilic (1988, 2 times), Del Potro (1988).

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Looking a year of births:

Djokovic (1987) met a younger player in a slam final 1 time (Del Potro, 1988).

Borg (1956) met a younger player in a slam final 5 times: McEnroe (1959, 4 times) and Lendl (1960).

Sampras (1971) met a younger player in a slam final 5 times: Rafter (1972), Chang (1972), Moya (1976), Safin (1980), Hewitt (1981).

Nadal (1986) met a younger player in a slam final 10 times: Djokovic (1987, 8 times) and Thiem (1993, 2 times).

Federer (1981) met a younger player in a slam final 26 times: Roddick (1982, 4 times), Soderling (1984), Baghdatis (1985), Nadal (1986, 9 times), Djokovic (1987, 5 times), Murray (1987, 3 times), Cilic (1988, 2 times), Del Potro (1988).

Interesting. So the five times he did play someone older than him in a slam final were W 2003, AO 2004, USO 2004, USO 2005, AO 2007 - After AO 2007 he never played anyone older than him in a slam final.

 

[NoleFam]

Looking a year of births:

Djokovic (1987) met a younger player in a slam final 1 time (Del Potro, 1988).

Borg (1956) met a younger player in a slam final 5 times: McEnroe (1959, 4 times) and Lendl (1960).

Sampras (1971) met a younger player in a slam final 5 times: Rafter (1972), Chang (1972), Moya (1976), Safin (1980), Hewitt (1981).

Nadal (1986) met a younger player in a slam final 10 times: Djokovic (1987, 8 times) and Thiem (1993, 2 times).

Federer (1981) met a younger player in a slam final 26 times: Roddick (1982, 4 times), Soderling (1984), Baghdatis (1985), Nadal (1986, 9 times), Djokovic (1987, 5 times), Murray (1987, 3 times), Cilic (1988, 2 times), Del Potro (1988).

Roddick and Federer are too close in age to be any age advantage and the same for Djokovic/Nadal. The number of times Djokovic beat Fedal to win a Slam is 12 times which is the number that will stand out. Now after you're done with this, calculate the number of times Federer had to beat a dominant older ATG in the top 3 to win his first few Slams and breakthrough compared to everybody else in the Open Era.

 

[herronpaul]

So, Fed won a total of 1 slam in Djokovic era. Pretty good for a GOAT, right guys?

Djokovic doesn't really have a era. Good 11 months then vanishes

 

[herronpaul]

But the difference is, when Sampras was winning his slams, there were tons of different slam winners happening.
When he won his first slam at the USO 1990, up till his last in 2002, there were several different slam winners. Its not like he was in a 3 horse race with 2 guys older than him like Djokovic is.
From 91 Becker, Courier, Stich, Edberg, Agassi, Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda, Moya, Safin, Ivanisevic, Johansson, Costa and Hewitt all won a slam, with some winning a couple or more, right up till Sampras won his last.

Now don't tell me that Federer or Djokovic remotely faced this kind of challenge.
Sampras had way more dangerous players to play back then. The names on that list are unreal, yet in Djokovic's career when he started dominating, all he faced were an aging or absent Nadal and Federer, plus Andy Murray.

Why did you leave nadL out?

Nadal on clay is basically the same clay mugs though? He wins vs fed, thiem and djokovic although re thiem and djokovic he loses a lot too and obviously he has had his mug wins over ferret oeurta soderling etc too

 

[metsman]

No. That doesn't diminish Djokovic's own great level, obviously.

Some other examples of great players playing dummy in slam finals: 1984 Wimbledon, 1991 USO, 2004 USO, 2008 RG. In cases like this, I'm giving the winners huge credit for exceptional tennis they produced at the pinnacle level of the sport, while their competition score is zero for the final. Can't have your cake and eat it too, that's simply illogical and biased. Level is more important than competition (since you control the former but not the latter) so they aren't losing appreciation for it.

Nadal has been getting pushed around a HC by anyone with a big game for the last 3 years. Usually loses to the first in form dangerous guy he meets or retires right during/when facing them because his body can't hold up to playing that much defense. But because he beat a bunch of special needs kids on his way to the final at AO this year he was at a high level I guess.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Djokovic doesn't really have a era. Good 11 months then vanishes

In 2011-16, he won:

the most Australian Opens,
Wimbledons,
US Opens,
WTFs,
Indian Wells titles,
Miami Opens,
Italian Opens,
Rogers Cups,
Shanghai Masters,
Paris Masters,
had most YE #1 finishes, narrowly missing out the other two times,
and never dropped below 10k points after getting there the first time.

Talk about being good for 11 months and then vanishing.

 

[BrooklynNY]

In 2011-16, he won:

the most Australian Opens,
Wimbledons,
US Opens,
WTFs,
Indian Wells titles,
Miami Opens,
Italian Opens,
Rogers Cups,
Shanghai Masters,
Paris Masters,
had most YE #1 finishes, narrowly missing out the other two times,
and never dropped below 10k points after getting there the first time.

Talk about being good for 11 months and then vanishing.

He also won 4 slams in a row... which I guess technically happens in an 11 month span

 

[Deleted member 77403]

In 2011-16, he won:

the most Australian Opens,
Wimbledons,
US Opens,
WTFs,
Indian Wells titles,
Miami Opens,
Italian Opens,
Rogers Cups,
Shanghai Masters,
Paris Masters,
had most YE #1 finishes, narrowly missing out the other two times,
and never dropped below 10k points after getting there the first time.

Talk about being good for 11 months and then vanishing.

Not too bad....

 

[moonballs]

Federer had Djokovic and Nadal.
Djokovic had Federer and Nadal.
Nadal had Djokovic and Federer.

So I guess they had it all tough?

Nope. From 2008 to 2012 when the big three were truly competitive, Nadal had many Federer Djokovic semi finals.

 

[duaneeo]

Roddick and Federer are too close in age to be any age advantage and the same for Djokovic/Nadal...Now after you're done with this, calculate the number of times Federer had to beat a dominant older ATG in the top 3 to win his first few Slams and breakthrough compared to everybody else in the Open Era.

How many times did Djokovic? 2011 Federer was past his prime. You can maybe say Nole beat a "dominant older ATG" at 2008 AO, but one can also say 2008 was the year Roger won only 4 games in the RG final, lost his first Wimbledon final, didn't make it out of RR at the WTFs, went 0-for-9 at the Masters (losing to 7 different players), didn't medal at the Olympics, and lost the #1 ranking. Hardly dominant.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

How many times did Djokovic? 2011 Federer was past his prime. You can maybe say Nole beat a "dominant older ATG" at 2008 AO, but one can also say 2008 was the year Roger won only 4 games in the RG final, lost his first Wimbledon final, didn't make it out of RR at the WTFs, went 0-for-9 at the Masters (losing to 7 different players), didn't medal at the Olympics, and lost the #1 ranking. Hardly dominant.

You see IT in the way he pretzels his way through the statement to get something out of it. He said "first few slams". If you were to delve deeper into that the conversation will quickly turn into "no, I meant maybe the first two or three" and if you were to ask him when was Federer "dominant" in 2011, you will then get some more ridiculousness.

Djokovic had his solitary breakthrough Major in the same year that Federer contracted mono. That was it. He came through as a dominant force from 2011 onwards by which time Federer has departed as a "dominant" player, no matter how much mental gymnastic is involved in grouping him with the other two. That is like saying that Federer beat "dominant" Agassi.

 

[Russeljones]

While we are still in the throws of debating the greatest and "betterness" of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, since the Wimbledon Final; I wanted to provide a little context for Djokovic's relative dominance since 2011. When Djokovic won his FIRST major in 2008 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 12 Majors. Now pay attention to this next part, because it's quite eye opening... When Djokovic finally won his SECOND Major in 2011 (AusOpen), Roger Federer had 16 Majors!! and Nadal had 9!! This is very very telling. Federer was 30, with more majors than anyone in history, and Nadal was in the middle of his utter clay court dominance with 2 lifetimes worth of tennis miles on his legs. At this time, Djokovic was emerging into his absolute prime of mid 20's with a more solid tennis game than we'd ever seen. There is no way to take that away from him, but the above has to provide a little context into his major tally from 2011. Could we really expect Federer or Nadal to keep winning at the same clip? NO, and there are many factors to this... age, hunger, life, a player like Djokovic, and etc. So... we really can't say for sure what this all would look like unless they all begun to start winning around the same time. Every discussion that begins with Djokovic's prowess over Federer has to begin with the acknowledgement that Federer had 16 MAJORS (most all time) before Djokovic won his second. That's crazy. None of this diminishes Djokovic.. he has the most solid game of all time. However, when he reached his early 30's, he did not, and still does not have a 25-26 year old player with comparable abilities breathing down his neck. Instead, he's still fighting the old guys he chased down... Federer and Nadal. Isn't that something.

The context I was looking for is the one explaining how the GOAT pretender didn't win more at a time of decline and general poverty in terms of talent and ability in the Tour. Disappointed.

 

[herronpaul]

In 2011-16, he won:

the most Australian Opens,
Wimbledons,
US Opens,
WTFs,
Indian Wells titles,
Miami Opens,
Italian Opens,
Rogers Cups,
Shanghai Masters,
Paris Masters,
had most YE #1 finishes, narrowly missing out the other two times,
and never dropped below 10k points after getting there the first time.

Talk about being good for 11 months and then vanishing.

In 11 month bursts no?

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

In 11 month bursts no?

And then he "vanished" for how long, a month and a half? LOL

 

[kevaninho]

Why did you leave nadL out?

Nadal on clay is basically the same clay mugs though? He wins vs fed, thiem and djokovic although re thiem and djokovic he loses a lot too and obviously he has had his mug wins over ferret oeurta soderling etc too

Nadal is in the same bracket. Although as a general overall player Sampras IMO is as good as Nadal, although completely different players.

But the point was that none of the big 3 face the type of challenge Sampras did. There were different guys winning slams constantly back then, whereas now, no one is able to step up.
This isn't just becaue the big 3 are just so good. Its the fact that the rest are poor.
Some can step up for a match or 2 against them, but then falter the next round.

Nadals biggest challenge on clay is Thiem, a player I enjoy watching, and eventually he will beat Nadal at RG, but other than that, Nadal has no massive challenge even in his declined state.
The same can be said of Djokovic who dominates the rest of the surfaces pretty much. He has no real challenge, especially on HC.
There is no way Sampras was just cruising through every slam even in his prime. He got challenged , especially outside of Wimbledon.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Context is king, Conrad.

 

[NoleFam]

How many times did Djokovic? 2011 Federer was past his prime. You can maybe say Nole beat a "dominant older ATG" at 2008 AO, but one can also say 2008 was the year Roger won only 4 games in the RG final, lost his first Wimbledon final, didn't make it out of RR at the WTFs, went 0-for-9 at the Masters (losing to 7 different players), didn't medal at the Olympics, and lost the #1 ranking. Hardly dominant.

So what you are implying is Federer left his prime in 2008 at 26/27 basically? He was no longer in his prime in 2011 when most of the matches happened when he was 29? Djokovic beat the dominant older ATG to win his first 1st (Federer was defending champ), 2nd (Federer was defending champ) and 4th Slams and he beat his current established rival who was already an ATG to win his 3rd (Nadal was defending champ), 4th (Nadal was defending champ) and 5th Slams. What dominant ATG's did Federer have to beat to win his first few Slams in comparison?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

So what you are implying is Federer left his prime in 2008 at 26/27 basically? He was no longer in his prime in 2011 when most of the matches happened when he was 29? Djokovic beat the dominant older ATG to win his first 1st (Federer was defending champ), 2nd (Federer was defending champ) and 4th Slams and he beat his current established rival who was already an ATG to win his 3rd (Nadal was defending champ), 4th (Nadal was defending champ) and 5th Slams. What dominant ATG's did Federer have to beat to win his first few Slams in comparison?

Federer was "dominant" in 2011?

I'd like to know what you are smoking.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

Very new and refreshing thread OP. Never seen this topic discussed in TTW ever!

Bring on such threads !!

 

[duaneeo]

So what you are implying is Federer left his prime in 2008 at 26/27 basically? He was no longer in his prime in 2011 when most of the matches happened when he was 29? Djokovic beat the dominant older ATG to win his first 1st (Federer was defending champ), 2nd (Federer was defending champ) and 4th Slams and he beat his current established rival who was already an ATG to win his 3rd (Nadal was defending champ), 4th (Nadal was defending champ) and 5th Slams. What dominant ATG's did Federer have to beat to win his first few Slams in comparison?

Fine, lets say Federer benefitted from not having to beat a dominant older ATG to win his first few slams. Lets also say Djokovic benefitted from not having to beat a dominant younger ATG to win any of his slams...the reason being that no younger player has developed into a dominant/ATG (or potential ATG) player, meaning Djokovic's main rivals are the same players who were his main rivals 9 years ago when his reached his peak. Who has benefitted the most?

 

[herronpaul]

So what you are implying is Federer left his prime in 2008 at 26/27 basically? He was no longer in his prime in 2011 when most of the matches happened when he was 29? Djokovic beat the dominant older ATG to win his first 1st (Federer was defending champ), 2nd (Federer was defending champ) and 4th Slams and he beat his current established rival who was already an ATG to win his 3rd (Nadal was defending champ), 4th (Nadal was defending champ) and 5th Slams. What dominant ATG's did Federer have to beat to win his first few Slams in comparison?

After winning 16 slams in rapid succession you simply cannot keep up that pace whether you are peak or not (and Federer certainly wasn't peal at that time). Fed did 18 out 19 slam finals. Do you expect him to do that again?

For example djokovic has just won 16 slams do you think he will win 16 more at the same pace? When he won 3 slams in 2011 why didn't he do it again? He was still the same player. When he won 4 in a row in 2016 why didn't he do it again? Was he suddenly a different player.

Even Nadal can't win more than 5 RGs in a row nor can fed borg or sampras at Wimb or USO

Djokovic came into the picture after fed won 16 slams. Tbh its unreal fed had the mental grit to carry on after 16 slams and a couple hundred million in the bank. He also came into the picture after Nadal had 12 slams. There is no way those guys can keep posting huge numbers in slams peak or not although Nadal was still formidable competition as he "only" had 12 slams, was same age as novak and had a lot more to prove in the game

You should know this well as a djokovic fan as of the big three he is the one with the most mental issues staying hungry coping with the crowd and respect and going on pepe hiatuses

The caveat to all of this it doesn't really matter what competition the big 3 had. They are cut from a different cloth and would be champions anywhere

 

[herronpaul]

Nadal is in the same bracket. Although as a general overall player Sampras IMO is as good as Nadal, although completely different players.

But the point was that none of the big 3 face the type of challenge Sampras did. There were different guys winning slams constantly back then, whereas now, no one is able to step up.
This isn't just becaue the big 3 are just so good. Its the fact that the rest are poor.
Some can step up for a match or 2 against them, but then falter the next round.

Nadals biggest challenge on clay is Thiem, a player I enjoy watching, and eventually he will beat Nadal at RG, but other than that, Nadal has no massive challenge even in his declined state.
The same can be said of Djokovic who dominates the rest of the surfaces pretty much. He has no real challenge, especially on HC.
There is no way Sampras was just cruising through every slam even in his prime. He got challenged , especially outside of Wimbledon.

Big three are steam rolling too many players just based on intimidation and also based on a pathetic field as competition in a transition era who can't volley or play quick points and overly rely on physicality. Big 3 are cut fron a different cloth mentally physically and talent wise.

 

[swordtennis]

Why would you have had an issue with Nadal owning Wimbledon over Federer? You would still get to read all the butt hurt online comments for entertainment

True true. If nadal got to 5 i would not run around diminishing them. Just prefer djoker has 5. Nadal wants another wimbledon title so bad i kinda feel bad. But good god he keeps winning all the french opens the others have no choice but to win the other majors!

 

[Pantera]

True true. If nadal got to 5 i would not run around diminishing them. Just prefer djoker has 5. Nadal wants another wimbledon title so bad i kinda feel bad. But good god he keeps winning all the french opens the others have no choice but to win the other majors!

Others? At the moment every slam bar Wimbledon and FO is a two horse race..Djokovic or Nadal. Wimbledon and FO are owned by Djokovic and Nadal of course.

Djokovic wants a FO as badly as Nadal wants a W, its interesting to see both so desperate for another at those two events.