Djokovic before RG2014 and after

Cortana

Hall of Fame
So after Djokovic lost RG in 2014, he lost 6 of his 12 slam finals. Pretty bad ratio and a clear sign of his underperforming in big matches. With only 6 GS titles he was far away from Nadal and Federer. After that he won 9 of his next 11 GS finals reaching his total of 15 GS titles.

So what changed exactly? How did he turn from a choker into a GS final winning machine?
 

ibbi

Legend
The serve got significantly better in 2015, something you'd expect from a guy working with Becker, and that's probably the principle reason he dominated that year the way that he did.

The fact that Nadal totally fell of a cliff for 2 years didn't hurt either when it comes to the 2015 USO and 2016 RG titles.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
Djoker improved while Fed and Nadal got worse. The rest of tennis got worse too. Murray had his very best season in 2016 by a large margin. It usually takes a combination of a lot of things to see a massive shift in results.

With all of that being said, Djokovic is playing at an unbelievable level right now. I don’t see him being stopped for a long time, except for maybe in clay.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Becker happened, which is why he was hired in the 1st place. Djokovic was disgusted with himself after his mental collapse in USO 2013 and hired Becker to help him improve mentally. He went from 6-6 in Slam finals to 6-2 before his form took a nosedive after 2016 RG.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Djoker improved while Fed and Nadal got worse. The rest of tennis got worse too. Murray had his very best season in 2016 by a large margin. It usually takes a combination of a lot of things to see a massive shift in results.

With all of that being said, Djokovic is playing at an unbelievable level right now. I don’t see him being stopped for a long time, except for maybe in clay.
Djokovic was losing those finals to Nadal and Murray, not Federer. He lost 4 of them to them in 2012 and 2013. Djokovic went 4-0 in Slam finals from 2011 AO-2012 AO so he obviously didn't need weak competition to dominate.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
The two biggest factors were significant decline in competition and Becker improving Djokovic's game. Let's look at just who he lost those slam finals to and who he beat.

2007 USO loss to peak Federer
2008 AO win against Tsonga
2010 USO loss to peak Nadal
2011 AO win against Murray
2011 W win against prime Nadal
2011 USO win against prime Nadal
2012 AO win against peak Nadal
2012 RG loss to peak Nadal
2012 USO loss to Murray
2013 AO win against Murray
2013 W loss to Murray
2013 USO loss to peak Nadal
2014 RG loss to prime Nadal

So a loss to peak Federer when he was 20, 4 losses to peak/prime Nadal and 2 losses to Murray. He won 2 against Murray, 1 against Tsonga and 3 against prime/peak Nadal.

2014 W win against Federer
2015 AO win against Murray
2015 RG loss to Wawrinka
2015 W win against Federer
2015 USO win against Federer
2016 AO win against Murray
2016 RG win against Murray
2016 USO loss to Wawrinka
2018 W win against Anderson
2018 USO win against Del Potro
2019 AO win against Nadal

So we have 3 wins against post prime Federer, 3 wins against Murray, 1 win against post prime Nadal and 1 against Anderson and Del Potro each. He lost to Wawrinka twice.

What should be evident here is that in both periods, he had 2 losses to a 'lesser' ATGs (Murray, Wawrinka) but in the second period, he didn't have prime Nadal, who cost him 4 slam finals. He also faced prime Fed in 1 final too.

He evidently improved under Becker in 2015, especially on grass. This was a big contributing factor as I suspect 2014/15 Fed may have had a chance against 2012/13 Djokovic at Wimbledon. But the competition was the major factor as far as slam finals are concerned
 
Last edited:

tennisfan2015

Hall of Fame
So after Djokovic lost RG in 2014, he lost 6 of his 12 slam finals. Pretty bad ratio and a clear sign of his underperforming in big matches. With only 6 GS titles he was far away from Nadal and Federer. After that he won 9 of his next 11 GS finals reaching his total of 15 GS titles.

So what changed exactly? How did he turn from a choker into a GS final winning machine?
Novk realised that STANozolol was too strong for him so he decided to try out Nadalolone, Murryozolol and Federadine, and it worked! :)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Djokovic was losing those finals to Nadal and Murray, not Federer. He lost 4 of them to them in 2012 and 2013. Djokovic went 4-0 in Slam finals from 2011 AO-2012 AO so he obviously didn't need weak competition to dominate.
He lost 2 semis to Fed too, not his fault the draws were pro Fedovic semis. Fed actually had more slam wins over Djoker in 2011-2012 than the rest of the players.

He didn't need weak conpetition to win, but things did get easier after 2013.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
He lost 2 semis to Fed too, not his fault the draws were pro Fedovic semis. Fed actually had more slam wins over Djoker in 2011-2012 than the rest of the players.

He didn't need weak conpetition to win, but things did get easier after 2013.
The OP is talking about his win/loss rate in Slam finals not SFs.

I think the weak competition argument is bs frankly. Clearly, Djokovic had it the hardest when we are talking about winning Slams and even if someone's eye test is clouded by bias, all the stats point to that anyway.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Apprently only when it concerns Djokovic.
Well it's obvious he had it the hardest. He's beaten either Federer or Nadal for 11 of his 15 Slams, and beat them both for one of them. People can come up with post prime or past their peak arguments, or whatever helps them, but if you are ranked in the top 3 and playing the #1 player in Slam SFs and Finals for years on end, you are playing well. I don't care about those kinds of things especially when Djokovic is the oldest man in history to win 3 Slams in a row.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well it's obvious he had it the hardest. He's beaten either Federer or Nadal for 11 of his 15 Slams, and beat them both for one of them. People can come up with post prime or past their peak arguments, or whatever helps them, but if you are ranked in the top 3 and playing the #1 player in Slam SFs and Finals for years on end, you are playing well. I don't care about those kinds of things especially when Djokovic is the oldest man in history to win 3 Slams in a row.
Djokovic fans easily jumped on the weak era train alongside Nadal fans to denigrate Fed. They didn't care that Nadal was actually a top player for years in 2005-2007, that Djokovic was a top player in 2007 or that Agassi was playing well in 2004-2005. They were quick to mention that they were babies and old.

Now when the same weak era arguments are being used against Djokovic, they can't accept it.

You need to start accepting that Djokovic did start having it easier at some point.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Djokovic was losing those finals to Nadal and Murray, not Federer. He lost 4 of them to them in 2012 and 2013. Djokovic went 4-0 in Slam finals from 2011 AO-2012 AO so he obviously didn't need weak competition to dominate.
Well, he didn't face 2007-2012 in any of his slam finals post 2013 anyway.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic fans easily jumped on the weak era train alongside Nadal fans to denigrate Fed. They didn't care that Nadal was actually a top player for years in 2005-2007, that Djokovic was a top player in 2007 or that Agassi was playing well in 2004-2005. They were quick to mention that they were babies and old.

Now when the same weak era arguments are being used against Djokovic, they can't accept it.

You need to start accepting that Djokovic did start having it easier at some point.
I don't care what Djokovic fans did since I'm one person and do not speak for Djokovic fans.

Well the whole idea that he won a lot due to weak competition is just silly to be honest. Of course he didn't have weak competition. He had the hardest competition based on virtually every stat available to us. He definitely is having it easier now but the majority of his Slams were not easy.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
It's not so great when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
What do you expect People to do when certain people call Djokovics competition weak? If someone claims that, them we should also check the other players competition.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I don't care what Djokovic fans did since I'm one person and do not speak for Djokovic fans.

Well the whole idea that he won a lot due to weak competition is just silly to be honest. Of course he didn't have weak competition. He had the hardest competition based on virtually every stat available to us. He definitely is having it easier now but the majority of his Slams were not easy.
You were adamant in claiming Fed had it easier for the same reasons.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
What do you expect People to do when certain people call Djokovics competition weak? If someone claims that, them we should also check the other players competition.
Except Djokodal fans for years have veen poking fun at Federer's competition. We're just fighting back now.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't care what Djokovic fans did since I'm one person and do not speak for Djokovic fans.

Well the whole idea that he won a lot due to weak competition is just silly to be honest. Of course he didn't have weak competition. He had the hardest competition based on virtually every stat available to us. He definitely is having it easier now but the majority of his Slams were not easy.
I don't Think the Wimbledon win was Easy either tbh, once again he had to take it to the limit in order to best another ATG. USO was easier but I wouldn't say AO was "easy" either. Once again had to beat Nadal but this time he absolutely destroyed him. To play at the level Djokovic was playing against someone like Nadal is not easy at all.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't Think the Wimbledon win was Easy either tbh, once again he had to take it to the limit in order to best another ATG. USO was easier but I wouldn't say AO was "easy" either. Once again had to beat Nadal but this time he absolutely destroyed him. To play at the level Djokovic was playing against someone like Nadal is not easy at all.
No the Wimbledon win was not easy. USO was probably his easiest Slam to date and he still played a USO champ in the final. Djokovic has never won a Slam without playing at least one Slam champ. AO looked difficult on paper but he is so much better than everyone else there that he pretty much made mincemeat out of a tricky draw. I also expected Raonic in the SFs which would have made his draw a little more tricky but with the form he was in, he would have dusted him off in 3 sets anyway. He still had to play Nadal in the final who hadn't dropped a set and quite a few thought had a chance for an upset, but he shut that match down quickly.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Except Djokodal fans for years have veen poking fun at Federer's competition. We're just fighting back now.
You can "fight" back all you want but poking fun at the way Djokovic has had to win his slams is a hilarious way to get back at him and his fans. His slam wins and the people he has had to beat speaks for itself.

I can go and claim that Nadals AO 09 win was weak sauce until the cows come home but how would that look?
 

upchuck

Hall of Fame
You need to start accepting that Djokovic did start having it easier at some point.
1.) It has gotten easier, but arguably not as easy as Fed had it in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Even today, the "also rans" are as consistent as Federer's top competition in those years, and both Fed and Nadal in the last few years have gotten better results than Fed's competition did in that period.
2.) 'Nadal and Federer got old' arguments apply to Djokovic too. He's 31. Although I think he still plays vintage tennis when necessary, using your arguments, his age is the equaliser here.
3.) As long as Nadal is around and in the top 3, the weak era argument for Djokovic will be a hard sell because the two of them are generational peers.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Competition doesn't just mean 1 or 2 rivals. Its the whole field, and lets be honest, Nadal and Djokovic's AO 19 runs were pathetic.
As has been Fed and Nadals 2017 runs/18 runs. The state of tennis in general is poor.
Djokovic may have had to go through 1 or both Fedal in slams, but to claim the competition has been tough, is frankly rubbish.
 

Enceladus

Legend
Victory at 2014 Wimbledon Championships corrected Djoker's weakened mental strength at that time.



Boris Becker has contributed greatly to this triumph. Under Becker's leadership Djoker has improved not only mental strength (respectively he regained the champion's instinct), but also service. Becker visibly helped Djoker's dominance in the 2015-16 seasons.
 
1.) It has gotten easier, but arguably not as easy as Fed had it in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Even today, the "also rans" are as consistent as Federer's top competition in those years, and both Fed and Nadal in the last few years have gotten better results than Fed's competition did in that period.
2.) 'Nadal and Federer got old' arguments apply to Djokovic too. He's 31. Although I think he still plays vintage tennis when necessary, using your arguments, his age is the equaliser here.
3.) As long as Nadal is around and in the top 3, the weak era argument for Djokovic will be a hard sell because the two of them are generational peers.
I'm one of the proponents that Djokovic had it the toughest out of the big 3, but things got easier after 2014 and that trend has been continuing. 2017-2019 has been filled with easier draws for not just Djokovic, but all of the big 3.

1) I don't know who you are referring to by "also rans", but there are no consistent players now aside from Nadal and Djokovic. I know you're no fan of Roddick, Safin and Hewitt, but they were simply better age-for-age than any of the young players today.
2) I think the age argument applies mostly to Federer. Beating up on a 34-37 year old Federer is no cakewalk, but it's not mission impossible,
3) Nadal has been around the past couple of years, but that's it. There's nobody else worth mentioning.

Djokovic doesn't need things easier to win, as he has proven time and time again, but that's just the way things are right now. If you ask me, it's a good thing for him and his supporters as he can pile on the slams until someone can finally step up.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You can "fight" back all you want but poking fun at the way Djokovic has had to win his slams is a hilarious way to get back at him and his fans. His slam wins and the people he has had to beat speaks for itself.

I can go and claim that Nadals AO 09 win was weak sauce until the cows come home but how would that look?
It's hilarious you even think Djokovic's post 2014 slams are even on the same level as Nadal's AO 2009 win.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
1.) It has gotten easier, but arguably not as easy as Fed had it in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Even today, the "also rans" are as consistent as Federer's top competition in those years, and both Fed and Nadal in the last few years have gotten better results than Fed's competition did in that period.
2.) 'Nadal and Federer got old' arguments apply to Djokovic too. He's 31. Although I think he still plays vintage tennis when necessary, using your arguments, his age is the equaliser here.
3.) As long as Nadal is around and in the top 3, the weak era argument for Djokovic will be a hard sell because the two of them are generational peers.
1. Not even close. 2004 and 2005 were much stronger years than the last few years. 2006 was weaker, but at least you didn't see two 30+ year olds dominating.

2. Djokovic is older now too, but there is nobody to expose that so his age doesn't affect him. The young ones suck and his main competition is as old or older than him.

3. This applies to Federer's best years too, with Djokodal in the top 3. Nadal and Djokovic being generational peers actually helps Novak. Because if Nadal were significantly younger, Djokovic wouldn't have it easy against him. This is where his older age would be a factor.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
If you look at Nole’s career he’s had three “dominant” periods. 2011, end of 2014 to mid 2016, and from Wimbledon 2018 onwards. By dominant I mean that he regularly reaches finals of most tier 1 events he enters. Some would call that peak. The problem is that these are not levels that can be maintained forever.

When you are looking at pre 2014 FO slam results you are combining one of his peak periods with other periods where he was playing well but was not really dominant. In 2012 and 2013 he was playing well but no longer “dominant”, losing to players like Haas in IW or Berdych in Rome.

Post 2014 FO Nole was generally only reaching slam finals during one of his dominant periods. Obviously the 2016-18 collapse meant he was losing early almost everywhere and so couldn’t even compete in slam finals. Post 2014 you have the crazy run from a Paris 2014 to the 2016 FO, maybe the most dominant tennis results ever in an 18 month period, and then the post Wimbledon 2018, where Nole has played 8 tier 2 events, reached the final in 7, and won 5 of them (including all three slams).

So the real test will be if Nole can continue his recent high final conversion rate in the next few years even as his level is no longer as dominant. I suspect not.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
1.) It has gotten easier, but arguably not as easy as Fed had it in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Even today, the "also rans" are as consistent as Federer's top competition in those years, and both Fed and Nadal in the last few years have gotten better results than Fed's competition did in that period.
this point --->

 

Rago

Hall of Fame
The most important matches that Djokovic has played after RG'14 are a Wimbledon final in the same year and the semi against Nadal in 2018.

@Hitman?
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
The most important matches that Djokovic has played after RG'14 are a Wimbledon final in the same year and the semi against Nadal in 2018.

@Hitman?
Those two without a doubt are the top two as far as importance to his legacy is concerned, they practically stopped him from being dead and buried and turned him into a killing machine.
 

Bukowski

Professional
The two biggest factors were significant decline in competition and Becker improving Djokovic's game. Let's look at just who he lost those slam finals to and who he beat.

2007 USO loss to peak Federer
2008 AO win against Tsonga
2010 USO loss to peak Nadal
2011 AO win against Murray
2011 W win against prime Nadal
2011 USO win against prime Nadal
2012 AO win against peak Nadal
2012 RG loss to peak Nadal
2012 USO loss to Murray
2013 AO win against Murray
2013 W loss to Murray
2013 USO loss to peak Nadal
2014 RG loss to prime Nadal

So a loss to peak Federer when he was 20, 4 losses to peak/prime Nadal and 2 losses to Murray. He won 2 against Murray, 1 against Tsonga and 3 against prime/peak Nadal.

2014 W win against Federer
2015 AO win against Murray
2015 RG loss to Wawrinka
2015 W win against Federer
2015 USO win against Federer
2016 AO win against Murray
2016 RG win against Murray
2016 RG loss to Wawrinka
2018 W win against Anderson
2018 USO win against Del Potro
2019 AO win against Nadal

So we have 3 wins against post prime Federer, 3 wins against Murray, 1 win against post prime Nadal and 1 against Anderson and Del Potro each. He lost to Wawrinka twice.

What should be evident here is that in both periods, he had 2 losses to a 'lesser' ATGs (Murray, Wawrinka) but in the second period, he didn't have prime Nadal, who cost him 4 slam finals. He also faced prime Fed in 1 final too.

He evidently improved under Becker in 2015, especially on grass. This was a big contributing factor as I suspect 2014/15 Fed may have had a chance against 2012/13 Djokovic at Wimbledon. But the competition was the major factor as far as slam finals are concerned
The bolded one didnt happen, right?
 

upchuck

Hall of Fame
this point --->
Just to scratch the surface, in 2004 Lleyton Hewitt, one of Federer's two main rivals and one who ended the year ranked 3 in the world, made the quarter finals at most 7 times in big events. Three of those times he advanced beyond the quarterfinals. In 2018, Marian Cilic, a second tier player, made it to the quarters of big events at least eight times, surpassing the quarterfinals three times. He ended the year ranked seven in the world. If 2014 is the year Djokovic's competition got weaker, then there are ample examples to indicate the competition he faced since then have been more reliable than what Federer faced in his early years of dominance. In my book, that consistency/reliability is the best indicator of overall ability.
I'm one of the proponents that Djokovic had it the toughest out of the big 3, but things got easier after 2014 and that trend has been continuing. 2017-2019 has been filled with easier draws for not just Djokovic, but all of the big 3.

1) I don't know who you are referring to by "also rans", but there are no consistent players now aside from Nadal and Djokovic. I know you're no fan of Roddick, Safin and Hewitt, but they were simply better age-for-age than any of the young players today.
2) I think the age argument applies mostly to Federer. Beating up on a 34-37 year old Federer is no cakewalk, but it's not mission impossible,
3) Nadal has been around the past couple of years, but that's it. There's nobody else worth mentioning.

Djokovic doesn't need things easier to win, as he has proven time and time again, but that's just the way things are right now. If you ask me, it's a good thing for him and his supporters as he can pile on the slams until someone can finally step up.
1.) Hewitt was my favorite player. Even if the three you listed were better for age than the young players of today, young players today are not the only ones comprising the top 20.
2.) Okay. Not everyone in this thread seems to agree.
3.) Even if Nadal is the only one worth mentioning, that's an awful lot to mention.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Just to scratch the surface, in 2004 Lleyton Hewitt, one of Federer's two main rivals and one who ended the year ranked 3 in the world, made the quarter finals at most 7 times in big events. Three of those times he advanced beyond the quarterfinals. In 2018, Marian Cilic, a second tier player, made it to the quarters of big events at least eight times, surpassing the quarterfinals three times. He ended the year ranked seven in the world. If 2014 is the year Djokovic's competition got weaker, then there are ample examples to indicate the competition he faced since then have been more reliable than what Federer faced in his early years of dominance. In my book, that consistency/reliability is the best indicator of overall ability.
Its one significant factor, but there are others. Ferrer for example was more consistent than Safin . No one with decent tennis knowledge would say Ferrer had more ability than Safin.

Getting back to 2004 Hewitt vs 2018 Cilic comparision :

Hewitt in 2004 made Hamburg SF, RG QF, Wim QF, won Cincy, USO F, Paris QF and the YEC F (Hewitt was also stopped by Fed in 4R of AO.)

He won 4 titles for the year. Went 68-18 for the year (79.1%)

Cilic in 2018 made AO F, MC QF, Rome SF, RG QF, Canada QF, Cincy SF, USO QF, Paris QF.

Won 1 title for the year. went 44-20 for the year (68.75%)


Hewitt made 3 finals - US Open, YEC and Cincy, actually winning Cincy.
as opposed to Cilic making only 1 final - AO.

Hewitt also won 4 titles to 1 for Cilic. had a much higher winning%.

But good job trying to equate those 2. Beyond delusional !


But Hewitt was your favorite player ? Ok. :-D:-D
yeah, if someone believes that, I have the Golden Gate Bridge to sell to him/her.
 
Last edited:

RS

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic had great competition for most of his first 10 slams but 3 or 4 if you count AO 2016 of the last 5 have been worse. ATG at his best did stop after RG 2014 but he still kept getting tough competition from Fed on faster surfaces and Wawrinka in slams for example.
Of his post RG 2014 slams Wimbeldon 2014 was a very impressive and among the toughest slams won in the modern era.
 
Last edited:

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Becker happened, which is why he was hired in the 1st place. Djokovic was disgusted with himself after his mental collapse in USO 2013 and hired Becker to help him improve mentally. He went from 6-6 in Slam finals to 6-2 before his form took a nosedive after 2016 RG.
He was 6-7 before Wimbledon 2014 actually. To go from that to 9-2 requires a massive performance improvement on the biggest stages, and I find it amusing to say the least that the usual suspects are still insisting that weaker competition is the main or sole reason for that instead. I'd rather be thankful that Novak was converting poorly before if I was in their place.
 

upchuck

Hall of Fame
Its one significant factor, but there are others. Ferrer for example was more consistent than Safin . No one with decent tennis knowledge would say Ferrer had more ability than Safin.

Getting back to 2004 Hewitt vs 2018 Cilic comparision :

Hewitt in 2004 made Hamburg SF, RG QF, Wim QF, won Cincy, USO F, Paris QF and the YEC F (Hewitt was also stopped by Fed in 4R of AO.)

He won 4 titles for the year. Went 68-18 for the year (79.1%)

Cilic in 2018 made AO F, MC QF, Rome SF, RG QF, Canada QF, Cincy SF, USO QF, Paris QF.

Won 1 title for the year. went 44-20 for the year (68.75%)
I did say "big" titles. ;)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I did say "big" titles. ;)
Hewitt made 3 finals of big tournaments. Cilic only 1.
Hewitt won 1 big title. Cilic 0.


But hey, Hewitt is your favorite player and Hewitt 2004 was no better than Cilic 2018. :-D:-D:-D

Edit : You cut that part of my post out because it goes against your BS. :)
 

upchuck

Hall of Fame
Its one significant factor, but there are others. Ferrer for example was more consistent than Safin . No one with decent tennis knowledge would say Ferrer had more ability than Safin.
Safin had a far higher peak but how relevant is that when the stats indicate that on average you stood a better chance beating him than you did beating Ferrer? Since the beginning of the Federer era, Safin was great literally for only several tournaments.
But Hewitt was your favorite player ? Ok. :-D:-D
Loved him!
Hewitt made 3 finals of big tournaments. Cilic only 1.
Hewitt won 1 big title. Cilic 0.
Yes and playing in a tougher era had no impact on Cilic's inferior ability to make "big" finals. ;)
But hey, Hewitt is your favorite player and Hewitt 2004 was no better than Cilic 2018. :-D:-D:-D
Their results, as a number 3 vs number 7 ranked player, are comparable. That's the point.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Safin had a far higher peak but how relevant is that when the stats indicate that on average you stood a better chance beating him than you did beating Ferrer? Since the beginning of the Federer era, Safin was great literally for only several tournaments.
Not for a top player.
For example :
Safin was 49/97 vs top 10 (50.5%)
Ferrer was 53/173 vs top 10 (30.3%)

Even if you take only their best 5-6 years, Safin's % is significantly higher.

Loved him!
lol, no one sane believes your BS. :)

Yes and playing in a tougher era had no impact on Cilic's inferior ability to make "big" finals. ;)
of course not. since 2004 > 2018 by a big distance , competition wise.

Their results, as a number 3 vs number 7 ranked player, are comparable. That's the point.
no, they are not remotely comparable.
1 slam final+ 1 YEC final + 1 masters win + 3 other titles with a winning% of 79% >> 1 slam final +1 title with a winning% of 68%

of course someone with a shamelessly biased agenda would say they are comparable. :)
 
Top