Djokovic and Federer's advantage over Nadal

aman92

Hall of Fame
If we look at the peak years of the big 3 (have objectively considered 6 peak years for each of them so that I don't hear arguments like Federer got old in 2008)

Fed peak: 2004-2009
Nadal peak - 2008-2013
Djokovic peak - 2011-2016

Nadal blossomed the earliest in terms of age of the big 3 but because of that his disadvantage is that barring 2010, his peak years concided with the peak years of one of the other big 3. Something to consider when people put down Nadal for having lesser no of weeks at No 1.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
If we look at the peak years of the big 3 (have objectively considered 6 peak years for each of them so that I don't hear arguments like Federer got old in 2008)

Fed peak: 2004-2009
Nadal peak - 2008-2013
Djokovic peak - 2011-2016

Nadal blossomed the earliest in terms of age of the big 3 but because of that his disadvantage is that barring 2010, his peak years concided with the peak years of one of the other big 3. Something to consider when people put down Nadal for having lesser no of weeks at No 1.
Nadal is less consistent than the other two no matter how you put it. His best years in 2008/2010/2013 are still below Federer's and Djokovic's best seasons pointwise and without looking I think same is true about the other seasons compared to Djoko's and Fed's next best seasons.

His much lower weeks at #1 count can be partially attributed to injuries breaking his momentum in 2009, 2012 and 2014 as well as having good stretches in 2007 and 2011 to mid 2012, but spending most of the time as #2, but all in all he should have less just based on how the careers of all 3 played out.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
If we look at the peak years of the big 3 (have objectively considered 6 peak years for each of them so that I don't hear arguments like Federer got old in 2008)

Fed peak: 2004-2009
Nadal peak - 2008-2013
Djokovic peak - 2011-2016

Nadal blossomed the earliest in terms of age of the big 3 but because of that his disadvantage is that barring 2010, his peak years concided with the peak years of one of the other big 3. Something to consider when people put down Nadal for having lesser no of weeks at No 1.
Well, he just never was good enough to break no1 records. OTOH, he is strongest no2 tennis player in history.
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
Nadal is less consistent than the other two no matter how you put it. His best years in 2008/2010/2013 are still below Federer's and Djokovic's best seasons pointwise and without looking I think same is true about the other seasons compared to Djoko's and Fed's next best seasons.

His much lower weeks at #1 count can be partially attributed to injuries breaking his momentum in 2009, 2012 and 2014 as well as having good stretches in 2007 and 2011 to mid 2012, but spending most of the time as #2, but all in all he should have less just based on how the careers of all 3 played out.
That period when he missed the second half of 2012 until the clay season of 2013 is crucial.. Really think he had a decent shot at USO 2012 and the year end no 1 ranking had he stayed fit.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
That period when he missed the second half of 2012 until the clay season of 2013 is crucial.. Really think he had a decent shot at USO 2012 and the year end no 1 ranking had he stayed fit.
I don't think so. He was ranked below Djokovic after Wimbledon and then Djokovic won Montreal, Shanghai, YEC and made the finals at USO and Cincinatti.
Nadal may have won the USO, but it wouldn't have been enough to outdo Djokovic here to end as #1.
Nadal's lack of results on indoors really hurt him in the long run.

Also, no mention of 2009? How many ranking points did he have before RG 09? He was the reigning champ in RG, Wimb, AO, IW, MC, Rome, Montreal, Barcelona, Queens, as well as having a SFs in USO, Cinci, Paris Masters and final in Madrid. It was a taller order for Fed to end as #1 in 2009 than for Djokovic to end #1 in 2012.
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
I don't think so. He was ranked below Djokovic after Wimbledon and then Djokovic won Montreal, Shanghai, YEC and made the finals at USO and Cincinatti.
Nadal may have won the USO, but it wouldn't have been enough to outdo Djokovic here to end as #1.
Nadal's lack of results on indoors really hurt him in the long run.

Also, no mention of 2009? How many ranking points did he have before RG 09? He was the reigning champ in RG, Wimb, AO, IW, MC, Rome, Montreal, Barcelona, Queens, as well as having a SFs in USO, Cinci, Paris Masters and final in Madrid. It was a taller order for Fed to end as #1 in 2009 than for Djokovic to end #1 in 2012.
Yeah of course 2009 as well but he wasn't nearly as good a hard court player in 2009 as he was in 2012 so I wouldn't expect him to do much better at the USO. He needed to again win Wimbledon that year to have a chance
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Nadal's and Fed's advantages over Nole is that peak Nadal has the highest clay level of the 3; peak Roger has the highest grass peak of the 3; Nole cannot claim peak hard level.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
Yeah of course 2009 as well but he wasn't nearly as good a hard court player in 2009 as he was in 2012 so I wouldn't expect him to do much better at the USO. He needed to again win Wimbledon that year to have a chance
He finished behind Fed by 1345 points though. Another final in Wimbledon and maybe a small improvement on one of his 2008 results and he would have been there.

In 2012 he finished 6230 points behind Djokovic. That's a lot to cover between Montreal and YEC, with a maximum of 7500 points available from big tournaments (8000 with Olympics).

Say he takes Montreal away from Djokovic, there is still a 4830 points gap with 6500 on the line.
Wins USO beating Djokovic in the final. 2830 difference with 4500 on the line.

So Nadal has to gain 2840 points from Cinci, Shanghai, Paris and YEC in order to end as no1. And that's assuming he beats Djokovic in Montreal and USO like he did in 2013. A bit of a tall order if you ask me.
 

MadariKatu

Professional
And right in between those peak years by Federer and Djokovic is 2010, when Nadal won 3 slams, and the clay slam. Too bad he had to retire injured at the AO, who knows what could have happened. In a way it shows that if so many of Nadal's peak years wouldn't have overlapped with the other 2, he probably would have been as dominant.

On the other hand, because his peak overlapped, we had historic matches, like W2008, AO2009, AO2012, RG2013... I rather have the rivalries with crazy unbelievable matches, rallies etc than him just dominate because nobody is there to match his level. Even if that means he has less records. I'm a fan because of those matches and the hard fought battles, not because he's won a lot.
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
He finished behind Fed by 1345 points though. Another final in Wimbledon and maybe a small improvement on one of his 2008 results and he would have been there.

In 2012 he finished 6230 points behind Djokovic. That's a lot to cover between Montreal and YEC, with a maximum of 7500 points available from big tournaments (8000 with Olympics).

Say he takes Montreal away from Djokovic, there is still a 4830 points gap with 6500 on the line.
Wins USO beating Djokovic in the final. 2830 difference with 4500 on the line.

So Nadal has to gain 2840 points from Cinci, Shanghai, Paris and YEC in order to end as no1. And that's assuming he beats Djokovic in Montreal and USO like he did in 2013. A bit of a tall order if you ask me.
Hmm you are right in that regard... I had just based it on the fact that was AWOL im 2012 post Wimbledon while in 2009 he only skipped Wimby but was played the rest of the important tourneys. He might not have ended no 1 in 2012 but might have regained the ranking from Djokovic much earlier in 2013 though.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
Djokovic has ended the debate among the big 3 anyway. He’s the king. I’ve been in denial until yesterday, probably since he’s by far my least favorite of the Big 3 by a long shot. But It’s too obvious now. He’s dominated the other 2 since he went on a gluten diet in 2011.

Since 2011, he’s
21-10 vs Federer
23-12 vs Nadal

That’s an entire decade of owning those two players. And he’s beaten them at their best events. He’s now beaten Nadal twice at RG. He’s beaten Federer 3 times at Wimbledon(2019 still haunts me to this day). But more importantly, he’s got some key records.

weeks at #1. If he doesn’t injure his elbow, he ends up with 3 more years as year-end #1 and would be well over 400 weeks at #1. But woulda could shoulda is meaningless. It’s the number that matters and Djoker owns this metric, which is massive in my book.

most big titles. Djoker owns this one too.

won each Master’s event twice.

double career grand slam.

For a decade, Djoker has now owned Federer and Nadal by going 44-22 against them. That’s highway robbery.

Yes, all years count. I get that. But 10 years of domination is massive.

Quite honestly, the only possible obstacle left is Rod Laver. Laver won the amateur grand slam slam, the pro slam, and the open era grand slam. That’s maybe the only argument against Djokovic. And that’s just a maybe.

I get that the story isn’t over yet. But he’s solidly in the lead in my book. And I see him only putting more distance between himself and the other two as time marches on, unless he gets injured. He’s a massive favorite to pass 400 weeks at #1 and a record-breaking 7th year-end #1.

Unreal.
 

USO

Banned
If we look at the peak years of the big 3 (have objectively considered 6 peak years for each of them so that I don't hear arguments like Federer got old in 2008)

Fed peak: 2004-2009
Nadal peak - 2008-2013
Djokovic peak - 2011-2016

Nadal blossomed the earliest in terms of age of the big 3 but because of that his disadvantage is that barring 2010, his peak years concided with the peak years of one of the other big 3. Something to consider when people put down Nadal for having lesser no of weeks at No 1.
His many injuries throughout his career also cost him to lose many weeks at no.1
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Yeah Nadal’s prime definitely overlapped with the strongest era between the three (barring 2010 which was a pretty weak year overall). Handled it quite well too.
Honestly, better for your peak years to overlap with tough competition than for your older years. No way I'd call Nadal unlucky on that front.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
In '11, Djokovic won 10 tournaments and 3 majors, in what's considered the best tennis year by a player.

But without Djokovic, Nadal probably would have won 9 tournaments and 3 majors, which would surpass his 2010 career-best of 7 tournaments and 3 majors.

In '11, both Djokovic and Nadal reached their absolute prime.
 
All three guys have feasted on 3-4 different generations of Mugs in their own ways really. Fed got to inflate his numbers from 04-07 because of guys like nalbandian and safin being MIA so Agassi had to pick up the slack and provide a little competition. When Nadal/djokovic finally came into their own Fed had already accumulated most all of his titles by then. Nadal/djoker have gotten to benefit from a very weak 2 generation of “successors” in their own right from 2014-present

Problem is these last 2 generation of players are really extending the muggary to great lengths. It’s almost 7 years and counting. Hell, the last guys to really do some damage was Murray, del
Potro, and wawrinka YEARS ago. That’s scary to think these are the last guys that have done any damage to the Old 3
 
Top