Did Djokovic's Presence Benefit Federer's legacy or Harm Federer's legacy ?

[Razer]

Lets look at scenarios where Nole not being in the draw could have a new winner

2008 AO - Federer
2010 USO - Could Federer have won this ?
2011 AO - Federer
2011 W - Nadal
2011 USO - Nadal (could Federer win this?)
2012 AO - Nadal
2013 AO - Murray
2014 W - Federer
2015 AO - Wawrinka
2015 FO - Nadal wins this beating Stan
2015 W - Federer
2015 USO - Federer
2016 AO - Federer
2016 FO - Murray
2018 W - Nadal
2018 USO - Del Potro
2019 AO - Nadal
2019 W - Federer
2020 AO - Thiem
2021 AO - Medvedev
2021 FO - Nadal
2021 W - Berretini
2022 W- Kyrgios
2023 AO - Stefan
2023 FO - Ruud
2023 USO - Medvedev


New Slam Count

Nadal - 22+7= 29
Federer - 20+7 = 27
Murray - 3+2 = 5
Wawrinka - 3+1 = 4
Medvedev - 1+2 = 3
JMDP - 1 +1 = 2
Thiem - 1 + 1 = 2
Berretini - 1
Kyrgios - 1
Stefan - 1
Ruud - 1

@nachiket nolefam @Kralingen @BorgTheGOAT @NoleFam @Holmes @Pheasant - Is the hypothetical math right? or would some outcomes vary ?

 

[Deleted member 758560]

hes having more slams as of now so perhaps it harms more like..

 

[InsuranceMan]

Gee, I wonder which one

 

[Cabeza del Demonio]

I am not stupid, no? It would be better if he is not here, no?

 

[Holmes]

Gee, I wonder which one

I agree with the spirit of your comment. It is obvious that both Federer, and the fans benefited from the presence of Nole who helped him reach his peak level of play and transformed him from a baseliner with a bad backhand to one of the game's great aggressors from the back. As a tennis and Fed fan, I have only gratitude.

 

[Arak]

Realistically speaking, if you take Djokovic out of the equation, Federer would have more slams than Nadal, and other players would have had more chances at beating both, knowing their injury history. Djokovic, being the youngest and fittest, and relatively injury free, extended the reign of the big3 until today, and nobody knows how long in the future.

 

[Razer]

Realistically speaking, if you take Djokovic out of the equation, Federer would have more slams than Nadal, and other players would have had more chances at beating both, knowing their injury history. Djokovic, being the youngest and fittest, and relatively injury free, extended the reign of the big3 until today, and nobody knows how long in the future.

So you are sure that without Djokovic in picture Federer sorts out Nadal earlier ? I somehow doubt that because Federer showed no signs of changing his racquet until 2013, who knows he could have delayed it even more without Djokovic ?

Without Nole we could be looking at Nadal having a bigger lead over Federer in Slams and H2H ..... Plus to make things worse, Nadal could have more weeks at 1 & year end 1s too......there would have been no argument favouring Federer..... he would have been seen as an Agassi of this era and Nadal would have been seen as the new Pete Sampras.....

 

[Arak]

So you are sure that without Djokovic in picture Federer sorts out Nadal earlier ? I somehow doubt that because Federer showed no signs of changing his racquet until 2013, who knows he could have delayed it even more without Djokovic ?

Without Nole we could be looking at Nadal having a bigger lead over Federer in Slams and H2H ..... Plus to make things worse, Nadal could have more weeks at 1 & year end 1s too......there would have been no argument favouring Federer..... he would have been seen as an Agassi of this era and Nadal would have been seen as the new Pete Sampras.....

That’s the problem with hypothetical scenarios, you can emphasise some elements at the expense of others.

 

[DSH]

So you are sure that without Djokovic in picture Federer sorts out Nadal earlier ? I somehow doubt that because Federer showed no signs of changing his racquet until 2013, who knows he could have delayed it even more without Djokovic ?

Without Nole we could be looking at Nadal having a bigger lead over Federer in Slams and H2H ..... Plus to make things worse, Nadal could have more weeks at 1 & year end 1s too......there would have been no argument favouring Federer..... he would have been seen as an Agassi of this era and Nadal would have been seen as the new Pete Sampras.....

Nadal would have the record for weeks at number 1 and also the record for Year- End number 1.
The Spanish player has been the most harmed by the presence of his nemesis in his career, without a doubt.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Who cares? Fed is overwhelmingly the most beloved and cherished tennis player who ever lived. That's more than enough.

All these endless Fed baiting threads are boring and so adolescent. He gave the world all he could give and is universally adored aside from a few haters. Can you people ever get that? You all project your own pathetic insecurities onto Fed and his fans. Move on and rejoice in your own guys amazing accomplishments instead of belittling a phenomenally gifted champion.

 

[Phoenix*]

Voted 2. bcs Fed did put the dog collar on Nadal in the 2nd half.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I hardly think Murray adds only ONE slam without Djokovic around.

 

[Kralingen]

Lol at Federer having a legitimate chance to do the NCYGS at age 34 if he played clay in RG '16 in this scenario

That would've been incredible

 

[MichaelNadal]

I am not stupid, no? It would be better if he is not here, no?

Nadal is so real lol

 

[nolefam_2024]

WTH Nadal won RG16 without Djokovic? He was injured.
Federer would have won more if there was no Djokovic and Nadal would have won many non clay slams more.
But Federer would have remained undisputed GOAT. 10+ Wimby he would have become the GOD.

 

[NoleFam]

If remove Djokovic, Nadal wins about 5 more Slams most likely—2011 Wimbledon, 2012 AO, 2018 Wimbledon, 2019 AO & 2021 RG. 2011 USO and 2015 RG are more uncertain.

Federer wins about 6 more Slams most likely—2008 AO, 2011 AO, 2014 Wimbledon, 2015 Wimbledon, 2015 USO & 2019 Wimbledon. 2011 USO and 2016 AO are more uncertain.

Murray also picks up a couple of AO titles, maybe 2013 and 2015, and probably 2016 RG unless young Thiem could give a great performance and beat him in his 1st Slam final, which I doubt.

So Federer would up end up with about 26 with potential to add 1 or 2 more, and Nadal would end up with 27 with potential to add 1 or 2 more. They could have ended up even tbh without Djokovic. Murray ends up with about 6, Medvedev with 3, and Thiem and Del Potro with 2.

 

[MichaelNadal]

He definitely hurt Fed more than Rafa

 

[nolefam_2024]

If remove Djokovic, Nadal wins about 5 more Slams most likely—2011 Wimbledon, 2012 AO, 2018 Wimbledon, 2019 AO & 2021 RG. 2011 USO and 2015 RG are more uncertain.

Federer wins about 6 more Slams most likely—2008 AO, 2011 AO, 2014 Wimbledon, 2015 Wimbledon, 2015 USO & 2019 Wimbledon. 2011 USO and 2016 AO are more uncertain.

Murray also picks up a couple of AO titles, maybe 2013 and 2015, and probably 2016 RG unless young Thiem could give a great performance and beat him in his 1st Slam final, which I doubt.

So Federer would up end up with about 26 with potential to add 1 or 2 more, and Nadal would end up with 27 with potential to add 1 or 2 more. They could have ended up even tbh without Djokovic. Murray ends up with about 6, Medvedev with 3, and Thiem and Del Potro with 2.

And then

Wimbledon will outweigh anything Nadal did oh man 10+ Wimby. He would be the god.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nadal is not winning RG 15 or 16.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal is not winning RG 15 or 16.

I agree

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Lets look at scenarios where Nole not being in the draw could have a new winner

2008 AO - Federer
2010 USO - Could Federer have won this ?
2011 AO - Federer
2011 W - Nadal
2011 USO - Nadal (could Federer win this?)
2012 AO - Nadal
2013 AO - Murray
2014 W - Federer
2015 AO - Wawrinka
2015 FO - Nadal wins this beating Stan
2015 W - Federer
2015 USO - Federer
2016 AO - Federer
2016 FO - Nadal
2018 W - Nadal
2018 USO - Del Potro
2019 AO - Nadal
2019 W - Federer
2020 AO - Thiem
2021 AO - Medvedev
2021 FO - Nadal
2021 W - Berretini
2022 W- Kyrgios
2023 AO - Stefan
2023 FO - Ruud
2023 USO - Medvedev


New Slam Count

Nadal - 22+8 = 30
Federer - 20+7 = 27
Murray - 3+1 = 4
Wawrinka - 3+1 = 4
Medvedev - 1+2 = 3
JMDP - 1 +1 = 2
Thiem - 1 + 1 = 2
Berretini - 1
Kyrgios - 1
Stefan - 1
Ruud - 1

@nachiket nolefam @Kralingen @BorgTheGOAT @NoleFam @Holmes @Pheasant - Is the hypothetical math right? or would some outcomes vary ?

Good that Novak existed otherwise we likely had Kyrgios and Berrettini as slam winners lol.
As for the question: Fed would be number two instead of number three in the slam race (and overall have more slams) so at first sight Djoko’s existence harmed him.
When talking about GOAT debate though: as it currently states, he is clearly behind Novak in stats but with Nadal it is still arguable for many (slams and masters vs YEC and weeks at No.1 in the end). With Novak, some Fed fans still argue that their primes didn’t really collide so they cannot 100% be compared.
In the new scenario now Nadal would clearly be ahead of Fed without any room to argue. Other than Novak he beat Fed from the get go when he was a teenager and the other was prime. He would have three more slams, way more weeks at No.1 than he currently has, would likely have an elusive YEC and backs up his 2010 with another 3 slam season in 2011 (at the very least two slams if Fed beats him at the USO) and a two slam season in 2012. He would have won each slam at least four times, and be the strongest player from 2008-2013 with the only arguable exception of 2009 which would however be due to injury.
So while in the current reality you might still find arguments for Fed being somehow on par/comparable with Rafa or even Djoko, this alternative scenario would put him clearly behind the former.

That being said: not 100% sold on Nadal winning 2015 FO and 2011 USO is not clear either. Fed lost 11 times against Novak at slams while Nadal only lost 7 times.

 

[pirhaksar]

I think w/o Novak would have really extended a bunch of his records including like 10 Wimby and 7 USO. So Novak hurt him more than Rafa. I am unsure if 2017 happens and he gets Rafa back in such a scenario as he wouldn’t have a reason to change tactics etc. might have even retired by then.

 

[Jonas78]

Nadal hurt Fed more. He would likely have several calender year slams if not for Rafa. Djokovic didnt stop Federer that much in his prime.

 

[SonnyT]

Djokovic hurt Federer more than Nadal. Federer had Nadal sorted out as early as 2014. So '14-ever after would've belonged to Federer, plus the 7 slams you mentioned.

Djokovic's slams are AO & WB, which are also the slams Federer won the most.

 

[fedfan24]

Nadal hurt Fed more. He would likely have several calender year slams if not for Rafa. Djokovic didnt stop Federer that much in his prime.

Yeah, this. Nadal cost Federer 4 RG, W, AO in the middle of his prime. Djokovic cost him an AO and a decent shot at a USO in 2011. 2010 don’t give him much chance vs Nadal that year but I think he makes it really close, maybe 5 setter or right 4 sets.

 

[Pheasant]

Ultimate Tennis Statistics is awesome for pulling up rankings from any date during the year.

Here's a breakdown of what Fed and Nadal gain in weeks at #1 and YE#1:


2008: Fed wins AO that year, which gets him 1280 more in rankings points. Nadal took over #1 on 8/18; and only ended the year 1370 points ahead of Nadal. Fed likely gains weeks at #1 while Nadal loses some. Looks like +8 for Fed at weeks at #1 and -8 For Nadal
2009: no impact. Nadal's lead
2011: Nadal was ranked #1 until 7/04. He would have added 25 more weeks at #1 and YE#1
2012: Federer gets about 12 weeks more at #1 and YE#1
2013: Federer gets about 12 more weeks at #1 this year. Nadal gains about the same. He didn't get to #2 that year(behind Djoker) until 8/19 that year. He took over #1 for good that year on 10/7/13. Thus, Nadal gains 8 more weeks at #1, but Fed gains 12.
2014: Nadal loses #1 on 7/7/2014. He would have kept it until 9/8/14 until Fed passed him. Nadal gains 9 weeks at #1. Fed gains 12 weeks at #1. And he gets YE#1
2015: Federer bags USO and Wimbledon titles and gets another YE#1, along with 52 more weeks at #1. MuryGOAT never passes him, due to Fed winning massive points by bagging Wimbledon and USO titles.
2016: Federer bags AO and gains another 20 weeks at #1
2017: doesn't matter
2018: Djoker took over #1 on 11/5. Thus, Nadal adds 8 more weeks at #1 and YE#1
2019: Nadal gets 44 more weeks at #1, since he would have led the whole year instead of from 11/4-12/31.
2020: Nadal gets 52 more weeks at #1 and YE#1
2021: Nadal would have been #1 until 5/17/21. Thus, Nadal gains another 19 weeks at #1

Summing up.
Nadal: adds 3 more years at #1 and 138 more weeks at #1
Federer: Adds 3 more years at #1 and 116 more weeks at #1

As far was being number 1, not much changes here. They both lost nearly the same.

As far as slams go, I'll use the OP's list and see what which way I lean on the more questionable ones.
2010 USO: Nadal keeps this. He was a killer in that tourney. Fed has no chance.
2011 USO: Nadal's serve was garbage and Fed was in very good form. I like Fed's chances a lot here. I'll give this one to Fed.
2015 FO: Nadal was in horrendous form all year. Nadal doesn't bag this event; no way. He was inexplicably hitting his forehand shots short all year; which allowed Fognini to dominate him that year(2 straight set blowouts on clay and the terrible USO match where Fognini rallied back from 2 sets down to win that match. I saw those matches and couldn't believe that Nadal became batting practice that year). Very sad. That mental block was crazy.

Slam titles added:
Nadal: 5
Federer: 7

Federer was hurt more than Nadal was.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Ultimate Tennis Statistics is awesome for pulling up rankings from any date during the year.

Here's a breakdown of what Fed and Nadal gain in weeks at #1 and YE#1:


2008: Fed wins AO that year, which gets him 1280 more in rankings points. Nadal took over #1 on 8/18; and only ended the year 1370 points ahead of Nadal. Fed likely gains weeks at #1 while Nadal loses some. Looks like +8 for Fed at weeks at #1 and -8 For Nadal
2009: no impact. Nadal's lead
2011: Nadal was ranked #1 until 7/04. He would have added 25 more weeks at #1 and YE#1
2012: Federer gets about 12 weeks more at #1 and YE#1
2013: Federer gets about 12 more weeks at #1 this year. Nadal gains about the same. He didn't get to #2 that year(behind Djoker) until 8/19 that year. He took over #1 for good that year on 10/7/13. Thus, Nadal gains 8 more weeks at #1, but Fed gains 12.
2014: Nadal loses #1 on 7/7/2014. He would have kept it until 9/8/14 until Fed passed him. Nadal lost 9 weeks at #1. Fed lost 12 weeks at #1. And he gets YE#1
2015: Federer bags USO and Wimbledon titles and gets another YE#1, along with 52 more weeks at #1. MuryGOAT never passes him, due to Fed winning massive points by bagging Wimbledon and USO titles.
2016: Federer bags AO and gains another 20 weeks at #1
2017: doesn't matter
2018: Djoker took over #1 on 11/5. Thus, Nadal adds 8 more weeks at #1 and YE#1
2019: Nadal gets 44 more weeks at #1, since he would have led the whole year instead of from 11/4-12/31.
2020: Nadal gets 52 more weeks at #1 and YE#1
2021: Nadal would have been #1 until 5/17/21. Thus, Nadal gains another 19 weeks at #1

Summing up.
Nadal: adds 3 more years at #1 and 138 more weeks at #1
Federer: Adds 3 more years at #1 and 116 more weeks at #1

As far was being number 1, not much changes here. They both lost nearly the same.

As far as slams go, I'll use the OP's list and see what which way I lean on the more questionable ones.
2010 USO: Nadal keeps this. He was a killer in that tourney. Fed has no chance.
2011 USO: Nadal's serve was garbage and Fed was in very good form. I like Fed's chances a lot here. I'll give this one to Fed.
2015 FO: Nadal was in horrendous form all year. Nadal doesn't bag this event; no way. He was inexplicably hitting his forehand shots short all year; which allowed Fognini to dominate him that year(2 straight set blowouts on clay and the terrible USO match where Fognini rallied back from 2 sets down to win that match. I saw those matches and couldn't believe that Nadal became batting practice that year). Very sad. That mental block was crazy.

Slam titles added:
Nadal: 5
Federer: 7

Federer was hurt more than Nadal was.

So Federer gets

8 year end number 1
426 weeks at number 1
28 slams including 11 Wimbledon, 7 USOpen, 9 AO and 1 RG
8 YEC

Nadal gets
8 year end number 1
347 weeks at number 1
27 slams including 15 RG, 4 USopen, 4 Wimbledons and 4 AO
1 YEC

I think both will look pretty OP. Federer will have issues at rg and Nadal will have issues at ATP finals. But both would have won everything.

But I think Federer with lead at 4 of the 5 slams and weeks at number 1 will have best argument for the GOAT.

Nadal will have some argument for GOAT as he would have won 13 non RG titles as well. This is how things could have turned out without Nole. Fed and Nole sharing the same tournaments was bound to hurt Federer more than Nadal. And this is when they are 6 years apart. If they were same age, they might have split the tournaments in the middle and Nadal would still have won his insane load of clay slams.

That's why most of the times I think Nadal is clay GOAT and Fedkovic are co GOATs overall. You forgot to add ATP finals, 9 ATP finals for Federer isn't a joke.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer would also play 6 RG finals and would lose to Nadal alone in semis and above. What we forgot to make a note of.

Federer never made a sf of RG before 2005

From 2005, every time he made sf he was beaten by Nadal. Except 1 time in 2012 when he was beaten by Djokovic..


So the story will go like Federer is the ultimate GOAT. His record at AO Wimby and USO along with ATP finals shows why.

But Nadal is the ultimate clay GOAT who stood in front of Federer becoming clay GOAT. Nadal beat Federer 7 times in semis and finals of Roland Garros otherwise Federer would be on 35 slams and be GOAT at all five big tournaments.


For Nadal, his story won't change much though. He would be called the metador, the bull. A bull who started beating Federer on clay and as Federer got older, he got a few more non clay wins. The bull is good enough to win outside clay but is stopped by Federer in 3 Wimbledons 1 AO and 1 USOpen while Federer has been stopped by the bull in 1 USOpen (2010) and 3 AO.

Outside RG H2H 5-4 in federer's favor.
Including RG H2H 11-5 in Nadal's favor.

But Federer has combined 26 slams in 3 large events and bull has 12. Not even close.


In fact federer's 11 Wimby will be worth a lot than his current 8. Because he would be vastly superior to Sampras.

But nadal's 15 RG doesn't have any difference to his 14 in real life. He is still KOC.

 

[Cabeza del Demonio]

Nadal is so real lol

He and Murray were always the realest of the big 4

 

[lim]

.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

For Nadal, his story won't change much though. He would be called the metador, the bull. A bull who started beating Federer on clay and as Federer got older, he got a few more non clay wins. The bull is good enough to win outside clay but is stopped by Federer in 3 Wimbledons 1 AO and 1 USOpen while Federer has been stopped by the bull in 1 USOpen (2010) and 3 AO.

Outside RG H2H 5-4 in federer's favor.
Including RG H2H 11-5 in Nadal's favor

Why is Nadal’s win at Wimbledon 2008 left out?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Of the three it might be Djokovic who is least impacted by Federer.

Federer beat him in USO 07/08/09 but Djokovic is beaten by many in USO finals. So let's say fed took 2 slams away from Nole at USOpen at max.

He took the AO 2007 from Djokovic. Djokovic had yet to win a masters title yet. His first slam semis came in 2007 at Wimbledon. So this is not a bad loss at all.

He took 1 Wimbledon away from Djokovic. So Djokovic could have 8. The record. But djokovic got a good deal, he now has 3-0 vs the grass GOAT at Wimbledon finals. Not a completely bad trade off.

Only thing that hurts is rg 2011 semis. But I am not 100% sure Nadal will go down easily. I give Djokovic 50/50 chance vs Nadal. So maybe it wouldn't matter anyway.

Overall Djokovic lost 3 slams or 4 at max due to Federer. It's not big enough to make a dent in Djokovic's legacy. He already has most everything now.






While if we see nadal's impact on Djokovic, Djokovic legitimately lost rg 2012, RG 2013, RG 2014 and RG 2020 to Nadal. Otherwise he would have 7 RG. And he lost 2 usopens to Nadal otherwise he would have 6 usopens. So Djokovic lost combined 6 slams legitimately to Nadal. And he would have been at 6 career slams without Nadal.

Even Djokovic ATP finals wouldn't have changed much. He already has 7, how does it matter if he got 8 instead. His year ranking would have changed from 410+ to 430+ again no big difference. Fed only hurt Nole once in his life tbh when he stole a chance to win calendar slam from Djokovic. But Djokovic hurt him much more.


Fed had much less impact on Djokovic than vice versa.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Why is Nadal’s win at Wimbledon 2008 left out?

Woah right. My mistake.

 

[Pheasant]

So Federer gets

8 year end number 1
426 weeks at number 1
28 slams including 11 Wimbledon, 7 USOpen, 9 AO and 1 RG
8 YEC

Nadal gets
8 year end number 1
347 weeks at number 1
27 slams including 15 RG, 4 USopen, 4 Wimbledons and 4 AO
1 YEC

I think both will look pretty OP. Federer will have issues at rg and Nadal will have issues at ATP finals. But both would have won everything.

But I think Federer with lead at 4 of the 5 slams and weeks at number 1 will have best argument for the GOAT.

Nadal will have some argument for GOAT as he would have won 13 non RG titles as well. This is how things could have turned out without Nole. Fed and Nole sharing the same tournaments was bound to hurt Federer more than Nadal. And this is when they are 6 years apart. If they were same age, they might have split the tournaments in the middle and Nadal would still have won his insane load of clay slams.

That's why most of the times I think Nadal is clay GOAT and Fedkovic are co GOATs overall. You forgot to add ATP finals, 9 ATP finals for Federer isn't a joke.

Nice summary!

 

[SonnyT]

Djokovic was the only player unaffected by Federer's neo BH. Without Djokovic, Federer would've made hay out of mid to late 10's. The 10's might've belonged to Federer and Nadal. And we might've had a real Fed-revival.