mtommer
Hall of Fame
Nope. There is no way to quantify that as there is no such thing to begin with except in some TW la-la land psychos.
Did Nole peaking on Grass (11-18) & Nadal peaking in (06-11) play a role in their W counts being 7-2 instead of closer? Or is Nole just far better ??
- Thread starter Razer
- Start date
Racquet_smash
Hall of Fame
I also don't think his career would have been over but i also don't believe he would won 11 more slams. For example the 2019 final could have gone a different way had he lost in 2018.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
I agree, the confidence he got in 2018 must have played a role in 2019 and remember he clobbered Nadal at the Aus Open 2019 final .... maybe that clobbering does not happen and we witness a closer match if Nadal pulled off 2018W
4UTRMoutet
Hall of Fame
I never said Novak was better on grass than Federer, I said he was his puppy. Thiem made Novak his puppy in later matches of their rivalry but he wasn't "better" in a general sense. And you can't even use Alcaraz versus Djokovic as a comparison because Alcaraz is almost 20 years younger lol.
So does this mean Roddick who is 4-2 against Safin on hard court is greater on hard despite having half as many HC slams?
4UTRMoutet
Hall of Fame
Is Nadal the wisest?? Surely going bald would turn him into a sage.
4UTRMoutet
Hall of Fame
Sincaraz is out of the question since Fedal didn't share an era with them. Suddenly Djokovic is looking rather poor...Wimbledon finals/semifinals played against Big4/Sincaraz:
Djokovic 11
Federer 10
Nadal 9
Sure Novak had easy competition
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
There is no “deserve” in pro sports. There is winning and there is losing.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
I’ve no idea what “people” you are talking about.Option 3 : Nadal > Djokovic at W got 27.5% votes ...... Sad for Nole, he has won 7 Ws but people don't take his wins vs Kyrgios, Berretini, Grandpa Fed who hand was shaking from old age etc etc too seriously.... Nadal defeated an almost peak Federer in 08, that cannot be replaced by wins over weak competition @GabeT @Hitman
Wimbledon was very clear on how to compare players when they had past champions enter for the Centre Court Centenary. It was by number of Wimbledons won. Talk of weak eras is left for online couch potatoes
Last edited:
4UTRMoutet
Hall of Fame
The big grass courters of that age were Anderson, Kyrgios, and Berrettini lol.
Fabresque
Legend
They weren’t bad. Anderson and Kyrgios took out Fed and Nadal. Their strengths as players just lined up with the grass courts. But they were never elite quality to challenge the Djoker
4UTRMoutet
Hall of Fame
They were definitely goodish sub top 10 players but they never could consistently challenge Fedal even on grass apart from a few special occasions. Anderson barely beat Fed on grass, which is your typical grass hard hitting upsetter only to flounder shortly after. Kyrgios beat Nadal in his worst grass period which Muller Darcis and Brown could all do.
junkieballer
Legend
So if Federer and Nadal in 2003-07 played semifinals and finals with Sampras and Agassi I shouldn't count them either?
Djokovic played different opponents from Federer because he peaked later, just like Borg played different opponents from Sampras, and Sampras played different opponents from Federer...
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Nope. Djokovic with 10 finals and 102 wins and counting is at the very least inside the top 3.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Option 3 : Nadal > Djokovic at W got 27.5% votes ...... Sad for Nole, he has won 7 Ws but people don't take his wins vs Kyrgios, Berretini, Grandpa Fed who hand was shaking from old age etc etc too seriously.... Nadal defeated an almost peak Federer in 08, that cannot be replaced by wins over weak competition @GabeT @Hitman
What cannot be replaced by subjective mostly agenda based views is the fact Djokovic has 7 Wimbledon titles and Nadal has 2.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
He is wiser than most.
4UTRMoutet
Hall of Fame
Yeah you probably shouldn't count those since it's guaranteed they would thrash Sampragassi just like how Sincaraz beats Djokovic currently, which there is no shame in being beaten by an ATG 20 years younger. On your point with Federer, Federer's career majorly overlapped with Djokovic more so than Borg to Sampras (who never met) or Sampras to Federer (only one meeting) while Fedovic met 50 times.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
A simple and straightforward.concept that many fail to understand.
As Clint Eastwood said - Deserve has got nothing to do with it.
junkieballer
Legend
If 32-33 years old Sampras was in good enough form to reach the finals and semis of Wimbledon in 2003-05 he would have been big problem for Federer.
As far as Nadal and Djokovic, they are the same age but Nole faced Sincaraz in 2 finals, 1 semi, 1 quarterfinal to Nadal's 0 simply because Nole played longer
4UTRMoutet
Hall of Fame
Fair point that Djokovic played longer but Nadal started off in Wimbledon way earlier and hence handled Federer quite a few times prior to 2011 when Djokovic made his first final/title.
Zeref123
Rookie
I agree but what I mean is that he is not as good as Sampras or Roger on grass.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Djokovic was just more clutch in the end
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Renshaw reached 7 first, so Djokovic cannot be in the top 3 wimbledon champions of all time
At the very least the people who reached a milestone first are considered higher if some years later those milestones are chased, so in that way Djokovic sits at 4th in all time list ...
Some would be say Borg with a 5 title streak is also level with Djokovic but I would still place Djokovic ahead of Borg because in the end numbers are numbers
That having said, it cannot be denied that while Djokovic and Nadal are of the same age, they peaked in entirely different phases, that played a huge role. Imagine if Novak peaked in 06-11 while Nadal was peaking in 11-16 phase ? Djokovic would have suffered a lot as peaking with Federer would give him 1 title or 2 title at max in that 03-12 period, so it really comes down to timing as @The_Order @The Blond Blur @DSH and @MichaelNadal so often say.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Djokovic has 10 finals, 102 match wins on top of his 7 titles. This is about all time, not who got there first.
No that is not how it is done. You don't get priority just because you were born first.
History remembers numbers, 7 is greater than 5.
Hypotheticals cannot change what actually happened, that is why they are hypothetical, make believe, like children playing make believe in school. Reality is all that matters. Reality is Djokovic won 7 Wimbledon titles in his career, Nadal won 2. Djokovic is the greater champion there.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
This is always about who got there first
The person chasing has a milestone in his head, so he knows what he has to chase while the person who reached there first is the pioneer.
You cannot say Neil Armstrong who stepped on the moon and the guy who steps today in 2026 are same, the pioneer always faced greater challenges
Sorry, Djokovic is not in the top 3
It is
Federer
Renshaw
Pete Sampras
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Says who, you?
No one says that. It is about who achieved the most. Djokovic has 102 wins at Wimbledon, and very likely will end his career with the most match wins at Wimbledon in history, only Federer right now has a solid case above him....
That means there is also additional pressure. Lets not assume the chaser has an easier time, how many have chased in the past and failed?
That doesn't mean Neil is a better astronaut...LOL
For you, not for me and not for history.
Nope. Its Federer, Djokovic (more finals, more match wins), Sampras, Renshaw
gamelovergold
Hall of Fame
There is a theory that chasing is easier because you know the target?
Chase can be huge pressure .
Chase can be huge pressure .
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Numbers don’t lie as per Djokovic fans
Zeref123
Rookie
And it is not like players choose whenever to enter god-mode.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Hitman, the world is not into accounting of matches and finals like you think. Most people don't care how many finals you've reached, in fact they see finals are a drawback. Lendl has lost so many finals in USA, his aura in USA is non existent despite his 3 US opens, someone like Nadal will rated above Djokovic in USA because the public there did not see Nadal lose again and again in the finals there while they saw Djokovic lose so many time that nobody sees it as a virtue like you are doing by counting finals.
It is laughable to put Djokovic above Sampras based on Novak reaching more finals, you must also be joking if you say Novak had more pressure in chasing numbers when his opponents are Kyrgios/Berretini in the last 2 wimbledon wins.
Neil Armstrong is worldwide seen as the best astronaut of all time because he reached Moon first, pioneers are always treated special in any field. Have you heard the name of Roger Bannister? He is rated above most long distance runners even today because he ran the mile first under 4 minutes at a time when people thought running a 4 minute mile was impossible.
Putting Djokovic above Sampras is actually embarassing, especially from a guy who witnessed Sampras's career firsthand like you.... sad ... you have gone so far in defending Djokovic that you proved grass skills don't matter to you, only numbers matter. You sound less like a consumer and more like a guy who checks how many copies of a product has been sold.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Go find me any videos or articles when Renshaw was put ahead of Sampras because he won 7 titles before Pete did. I'll wait.
Until then, I'll take this all as more of your mental gymnastics that you are constantly doing in a vain attempt to bring Djokovic down.
You made a point that I do have agreement with, but it is something you should consider yourself...the world doesn't care, yes, and it doesn't care about who they beat and subjective biased takes on competition and the weight of titles. They only care how much you won....don't think so, look at that Wimbledon winner's board and tell me what you see.
I'll leave it there.
Zeref123
Rookie
Crazy thing is that Razer, in some threads of 2023, was praising Djoko as the greatest ever when he won 23 and 24. Since 2025 has been quite the opposite...
Hitman
Bionic Poster
He's gone off the deep end.
That's ridiculous! Probably, in Renshaw's time, only the idle upper crust had the time to indulge in tennis. And in modern times, the tennis-playing population might be hundreds of times more!
I don't indulge in meaningless speculation. All I know was that Djokovic inflicted three straight slam defeats ('15 WB & US, and '16 AO) on the Jackrabbit Nadal. And since then, the Jackrabbit turned into Muscle Man. And that '13 transition had nothing to do with Federer, since Nadal was in the midst of 6-slam winning streak, that lasted from '08 to '17.
Last edited:
gamelovergold
Hall of Fame
I can guarantee hundred and ten percent this theory of neil Neil Armstrong would never would have come to anyone mind when tennis acheivements are measured.
There may be questions that between Sampras and federer who was better( only 1 slam difference).
Between Nadal and novak there is astronomical gap of 5 slam.
Nadal defeated best version of federer doesn't make him greater in consistency and longevity .
When you are comparing whole career everything matters.
7 versus 2 is no contest at all.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
My god, you really are a Troll, lol, 15WB, US and 16AO on Nadal ??? So the T in your username stands for Troll, I am convinced Sonny
By the way Renshaw is still relevant, I remember when Djokovic faced Alcaraz in wimbledon final, just before the match they showed the top wimbledon winners, Renshaw's name was mentioned there. That part of the video is before the match began, when they were walking to the court, clearly Renshaw's name was mentioned. He was not forgotten.
I am sure Renshaw was listed among the top winners of wimbledon list during the entry of Djoko vs Alcaraz match, he is not forgotten. Youtube has cropped that section off, during the match I remember it. We need to find footage of the match and check, we can find it.
Born_to_slice
Legend
Fedal pretty lucky Nole didn't peak on grass earlier.
In which century did Renshaw play in, the 19th or 20th one? Did he even have a first name? Back then, maybe some people had just one name!My god, you really are a Troll, lol, 15WB, US and 16AO on Nadal ??? So the T in your username stands for Troll, I am convinced Sonny
By the way Renshaw is still relevant, I remember when Djokovic faced Alcaraz in wimbledon final, just before the match they showed the top wimbledon winners, Renshaw's name was mentioned there. That part of the video is before the match began, when they were walking to the court, clearly Renshaw's name was mentioned. He was not forgotten.
I am sure Renshaw was listed among the top winners of wimbledon list during the entry of Djoko vs Alcaraz match, he is not forgotten. Youtube has cropped that section off, during the match I remember it. We need to find footage of the match and check, we can find it.
Last edited:
jl809
Legend
Which of Federer’s Wimbledon wins would have been at risk from a peaking earlier Nole?
Born_to_slice
Legend
Hypothetically? Every single one. No need to prove anything, just claim what suits me...like OP does.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Sadly, Djokovic was a low talented Grass player who cried before Boris Becker on phone at age 26 to teach him how to play on Grass.
Federer at age 26 was a genius with a 5 wimbledon streak
So we know that if low skilled guy was of the same age as Federer then Federer would have crushed him and reduced him to a new Andre Kirk Agassi who won just 1 wimbledon, not to mention peak Nadal would have also inflicted dents on Nole bigtime. He is extremely lucky to be born in 1987 instead of 1981.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Here it is @Hitman , Renshaw is not forgotten, they placed him above Sampras in this. You might say Djokovic is above Sampras, well that is because he is playing in the final and they dont want to put him below Sampras/Renshaw there but in general the hierarchy is always the guy who reached the milestone first is the pioneer and the other guy who equaled it is put below, not above.
Djokovic defeated Federer 3-1 on grass!
Fedfans always bend backwards to forgive Federer on grass!
On HC, Federer last defeated Djokovic at '07 AO when he was 19, and Federer last defeated him at '09 US when he was 22! How do you make excuses for Federer?
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Here it is @Hitman , Renshaw is not forgotten, they placed him above Sampras in this. You might say Djokovic is above Sampras, well that is because he is playing in the final and they dont want to put him below Sampras/Renshaw there but in general the hierarchy is always the guy who reached the milestone first is the pioneer and the other guy who equaled it is put below, not above.
And look who they have above Renshaw.....the number 4 according to you.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
He is a current player, so they are putting him there just to keep him happy. Had he been a former player then he would be below Renshaw like the great Pete
Hitman
Bionic Poster
He is a current player, so they are putting him there just to keep him happy. Had he been a former player then he would be below Renshaw like the great Pete
LOL
OK, now I have heard it all.
I'll take a pass on that.
34+, but still prime. And still losing to Djokovic on grass, and on HC!You need to thank this legend for Djokovic's 3 wimbledon wins over 34+ Federer
Djokovic, the only player with more T10 wins than total losses, including the Next Two, Alcaraz & Sinner!
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I need to eat and watch classic matches w my bestie Mike Deezy
