Djokovic - can he become greater than Federer on two surfaces?

[RF-18]

Their HC careers are very similar but atm Federer edges him with two more HC slams. Djokovic has 5 YECS to Feds 6, and Masters I think Djokovic is 1 HC Masters ahead of him, if I'm not mistaken. Novak is 28, and in Great shape, he has alot of time to do more on HC.

As for clay, Djokovic has 11 titles and so does Federer. In masters, Djokovic holds all clay master multiple times except for Madrid where he has won one time. Federer lacks two clay masters and that is MC and Rome. Their total clay masters titles tally: 7-6 in Novaks favour. What we should add here is that Djokovic has four Rome titles, wich is considered as one of the most prestigous tournaments historically.

But, at the most important venue, Philippe Chatrier Novak lacks a FO title while Fed has one.

I think, if Djokovic wins a FO, he will surpass Federer on clay. It is hard to say he is better now without a FO title.

So, as we see here, Djokovic is very close of being greater than Fed on two surfaces that are being played on. Federer will have grass over him. Can Djokovic do it?

 

[xFedal]

Their HC careers are very similar but atm Federer edges him with two more HC slams. Djokovic has 5 YECS to Feds 6, and Masters I think Djokovic is 1 HC Masters ahead of him, if I'm not mistaken. Novak is 28, and in Great shape, he has alot of time to do more on HC.

As for clay, Djokovic has 11 titles and so does Federer. In masters, Djokovic holds all clay master multiple times except for Madrid where he has won one time. Federer lacks two clay masters and that is MC and Rome. Their total clay masters titles tally: 7-6 in Novaks favour. What we should add here is that Djokovic has four Rome titles, wich is considered as one of the most prestigous tournaments historically.

But, at the most important venue, Philippe Chatrier Novak lacks a FO title while Fed has one.

I think, if Djokovic wins a FO, he will surpass Federer on clay. It is hard to say he is better now without a FO title.

So, as we see here, Djokovic is very close of being greater than Fed on two surfaces that are being played on. Federer will have grass over him. Can Djokovic do it?

Yes Nole will do this, Nolefam have faith just like some have faith iN RF-18.

 

[RSH]

Yes.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

He can.

GOAT.

Right?

 

[PeterHo]

2 more AOs and a RG required.

Quite possible.

 

[Steve0904]

He can, but the chances of him getting to 17 slams are much lower.

 

[gn]

Djokovic can level with Fed on HC if he wins two more Slams. But I won't give much weight to masters because of BO3 Finals.
If he wins 3 more, Djokovic is HC GOAT hands down. What Novak needs is a FO to level with Fed. But imagine what would have
happened if Rafa and Novak played BO5 Finals on Clay. They probably would have skipped next Masters.

 

[Sysyphus]

Yes, he can.

On plexicushion and high-bouncing red clay (with two RG's).

No chance on grass, deco, blue clay, low-bouncing red clay, carpet (duh).

fedr goat

 

[xFedal]

He can, but the chances of him getting to 17 slams are much lower.

Yes but Fed fans like throw around Fed being better than Nadal at 2/3 surfaces so it will be interesting when the same thing happens to him.

 

[tennisaddict]

Someone barely has won 2 USO after saving MP's and he is the greatest HC ? Keep it coming.

And good luck with that elusive FO. This time it was Stan, next year it will be Andy

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

It pretty much depends on how his 2016 turns out. If he manages to maintain even 70% of the dominance shown this year, he has a good shot at having another trophy rich season. For the variety it would be better if he adds another US Open, but winning another AO would make him the first player to win one HC Slam 6 times, so every possibility has its benefits. What I have to say is that Djokovic has positioned himself very well in other HC categories. One more Masters with a good chance of adding more, and one less WTF is an excellent resume for him at this stage.
But in all honesty, I don't want him to win just to get closer to Federer/Nadal so some can rub it in their fans' faces, especially when it comes to his FO quest. I just want him to win because I like the guy and because him being happy makes me happy too.

 

[Steve0904]

Yes but Fed fans like throw around Fed being better than Nadal at 2/3 surfaces so it will be interesting when the same thing happens to him.

Djokovic can be better on 2/3 surfaces all he likes. Federer will still be better at the majority of slams, and even if we assume that the gap between the respective HC slams will end up being about equal, Federer is likely to end with a bigger gap at Wimbledon than Djokovic will end up with at RG if he gets a title (1 title each being a tie for all intents and purposes). I bet you Djokovic himself would laugh at this thread. He would either.

1) Not agree outright
2) Even if he does agree, he wouldn't care since his ultimate goal is 17 slams.

Also, this thread is essentially combining the AO with the USO without taking the differences in the HC's into account. They're 2 different HC's. One is molasses in January slow and one is about medium speed these days. That said, Djokovic is better on slow HC, but Federer will likely end up better on faster HC.

The Federer-Nadal comparison is not a good one. The reason Federer is better on 2/3 surfaces is because he just is. He's way better statistically on HC and grass. He has 3 more AO's 3 more USO's, and 5 more Wimbledon not to mention 6 more YEC's. The two comparisons are not like for like at all.

 

[mattosgrant]

He can but the surface breakdown is always a funny thing. One could argue Becker is better than Nadal on 4 of 5 surfaces (slow hard, fast hard, indoor/carpet, grass) if we do an even more in depth breakdown. One can argue that about Edberg too. Yet both are way way below him in greatness despite that.

Yes it is an interesting thing to realize though.

 

[Steve0904]

He can but the surface breakdown is always a funny thing. One could argue Becker is better than Nadal on 4 of 5 surfaces (slow hard, fast hard, indoor/carpet, grass) if we do an even more in depth breakdown. One can argue that about Edberg too. Yet both are way way below him in greatness despite that.

Yes it is an interesting thing to realize though.

Exactly. It's not just about being better by a slim margin. Sometimes it's about the huge gaps between players on certain surfaces. In your comparison, clay is that surface, and that is why Nadal is considered way better than Becker or Edberg. As in, about 8 slams better.

 

[RF-18]

Djokovic can be better on 2/3 surfaces all he likes. Federer will still be better at the majority of slams, and even if we assume that the gap between the respective HC slams will end up being about equal, Federer is likely to end with a bigger gap at Wimbledon than Djokovic will end up with at RG if he gets a title (1 title each being a tie for all intents and purposes). I bet you Djokovic himself would laugh at this thread. He would either.

1) Not agree outright
2) Even if he does agree, he wouldn't care since his ultimate goal is 17 slams.

Also, this thread is essentially combining the AO with the USO without taking the differences in the HC's into account. They're 2 different HC's. One is molasses in January slow and one is about medium speed these days. That said, Djokovic is better on slow HC, but Federer will likely end up better on faster HC.

The Federer-Nadal comparison is not a good one. The reason Federer is better on 2/3 surfaces is because he just is. He's way better statistically on HC and grass. He has 3 more AO's 3 more USO's, and 5 more Wimbledon not to mention 6 more YEC's. The two comparisons are not like for like at all.

It is not a thread about who is the greater player or has the greater careers, it is about two surfaces.

 

[Steve0904]

It is not a thread about who is the greater player or has the greater careers, it is about two surfaces.

But those 2 things are somewhat linked. Hence the response.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Their HC careers are very similar but atm Federer edges him with two more HC slams. Djokovic has 5 YECS to Feds 6, and Masters I think Djokovic is 1 HC Masters ahead of him, if I'm not mistaken. Novak is 28, and in Great shape, he has alot of time to do more on HC.

Very similar how?

Federer is the better HC player overall. 4 AO titles and 5 USO titles to 5 AO titles and 2 USO titles. That's just statistics.

As for clay, Djokovic has 11 titles and so does Federer. In masters, Djokovic holds all clay master multiple times except for Madrid where he has won one time. Federer lacks two clay masters and that is MC and Rome. Their total clay masters titles tally: 7-6 in Novaks favour. What we should add here is that Djokovic has four Rome titles, wich is considered as one of the most prestigous tournaments historically.

What we should also add is that Djoker has had next to no competition, while Fed had to contend with a beasting Nadal year after year.

But, at the most important venue, Philippe Chatrier Novak lacks a FO title while Fed has one.

I think, if Djokovic wins a FO, he will surpass Federer on clay. It is hard to say he is better now without a FO title.

So, as we see here, Djokovic is very close of being greater than Fed on two surfaces that are being played on. Federer will have grass over him. Can Djokovic do it?

No, we see Fed is still a lot greater than Novak on HC and that he's still better than him on clay.

Also, no. He will never be better than Fed on 2 surfaces.

 

[Noelan]

Their HC careers are very similar but atm Federer edges him with two more HC slams. Djokovic has 5 YECS to Feds 6, and Masters I think Djokovic is 1 HC Masters ahead of him, if I'm not mistaken. Novak is 28, and in Great shape, he has alot of time to do more on HC.

As for clay, Djokovic has 11 titles and so does Federer. In masters, Djokovic holds all clay master multiple times except for Madrid where he has won one time. Federer lacks two clay masters and that is MC and Rome. Their total clay masters titles tally: 7-6 in Novaks favour. What we should add here is that Djokovic has four Rome titles, wich is considered as one of the most prestigous tournaments historically.

But, at the most important venue, Philippe Chatrier Novak lacks a FO title while Fed has one.

I think, if Djokovic wins a FO, he will surpass Federer on clay. It is hard to say he is better now without a FO title.

So, as we see here, Djokovic is very close of being greater than Fed on two surfaces that are being played on. Federer will have grass over him. Can Djokovic do it?

2016 Novak has a chance to equal number of HC slams, WTFs and he alerady has more masters titles on HC. If he stays healthy I have no doubts that he will become greatest HC player. About RG , hes already better clay courter than federer despite lack of RG title. So in 2/3 years we could exspect from him to take lead on both surfaces. That will be awesome

 

[RF-18]

Very similar how?

Federer is the better HC player overall. 4 AO titles and 5 USO titles to 5 AO titles and 2 USO titles. That's just statistics.

I mean similar in their path of achieving things on HC. But Fed still has the edge of course and I'm also saying Novak is 28 and playing his best tennis ever. So he has his time to become better.

What we should also add is that Djoker has had next to no competition, while Fed had to contend with a beasting Nadal year after year.

I don't know what competition has to do with this. But Djokovic has contended for his clay titles with Nadal too.

No, we see Fed is still a lot greater than Novak on HC and that he's still better than him on clay.

Also, no. He will never be better than Fed on 2 surfaces.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why you approach this thread in this way. I haven't said Djoko is better in neither, I'm asking IF he can surpass him. Federer lacks a rome and MC title while Djoko has it all. He lacks a FO title.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I mean similar in their path of achieving things on HC. But Fed still has the edge of course and I'm also saying Novak is 28 and playing his best tennis ever. So he has his time to become better.

I don't think their path to success is similar at all..

You'll find Djoker's career is parallel to a guy like Lendl.

I don't know what competition has to do with this. But Djokovic has contended for his clay titles with Nadal too.

Here's Nadal in 2015:

Here's Nadal in 2006:

I don't need to say anymore.

I don't know why you approach this thread in this way. I haven't said Djoko is better in neither, I'm asking IF he can surpass him. Federer lacks a rome and MC title while Djoko has it all. He lacks a FO title.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

And I've clearly and plainly stated that I don't think he's ever going to surpass him, nor do I truly think it's possible.

I can understand what you type fine, it seems like you're unable to grasp what I am saying.

 

[RF-18]

I don't think their path to success is similar at all..

You'll find Djoker's career is parallel to a guy like Lendl.



Here's Nadal in 2015:

Here's Nadal in 2006:

I don't need to say anymore.



And I've clearly and plainly stated that I don't think he's ever going to surpass him, nor do I truly think it's possible.

I can understand what you type fine, it seems like you're unable to grasp what I am saying.

Okey, your opinion is fine. Lets see what happens.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Okey, your opinion is fine. Lets see what happens.

For the record 5 AO trophies and 2 USO trophies is not bad at all. He will go down as one of the greatest HC players ever, just not the greatest.

 

[spirit95]

Normally I don't like weak era arguments because they're boring but Federer was competing against prime Nadal for his clay titles. Djokovic only against old Nadal. Djokovic is competing in a much weaker clay era than Federer.

Evidence: Federer has an additional 10 finals appearances at clay M1000s and 4 FO finals, Djokovic has only 4 M1000 runner up finishes and 3 FO finals. I think all of Fed's losses were to Nadal.

 

[dante1976]

For the record 5 AO trophies and 2 USO trophies is not bad at all. He will go down as one of the greatest HC players ever, just not the greatest.

And if he win couple more? I bet even if he win 5 more HC slams some excuse a la "but he didn't play peak Rafa" or something similar will come out from Fed fanatics

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And if he win couple more? I bet even if he win 5 more HC slams some excuse a la "but he didn't play peak Rafa" or something similar will come out from Fed fanatics

5 more HC slams and no question he will be better..

Just not at 5/2.

Clearly 4/5 is better, no?

 

[Winners or Errors]

Pretty sure he will never get to 5 US Opens or 5 Wimbledons in a row, so no... There should have been an option for that. I don't think he's going to decline next year. We shall see. Right now, there's just no one to challenge him consistently, and unless Murray wakes up, I don't see any consistent challengers on the horizon. I mean, Federer, who turns 35 next year, looks to be his biggest rival again. At least Agassi got to deal with Federer during the earlier part of his dominance, and not as the more mature player of 2006 and 2007.

 

[abmk]

He can but the surface breakdown is always a funny thing. One could argue Becker is better than Nadal on 4 of 5 surfaces (slow hard, fast hard, indoor/carpet, grass) if we do an even more in depth breakdown. One can argue that about Edberg too. Yet both are way way below him in greatness despite that.

Yes it is an interesting thing to realize though.

I don't see how becker is better than nadal on fast hard !?

nadal has 2 USOs ( 1 set dropped in each ) and a final, becker has 1 USO ( saving MPin an early round match ), nothing else ...

becker heavily under-performed at the USO ..he has 1 cincy, 1 canada

nadal has 1 cincy, 4 canada

edberg is closer because of 2 USO titles, but I think nadal edges him out ...more finals and SFs...with more canada titles as well ....
edberg isn't better on slow hard either ..

 

[RF-18]

Bump. Since I made this thread, Djoko is getting alot more closer.

 

[Odvala]

Bump. Since I made this thread, Djoko is getting alot more closer.

Can you guys keep on Bumping this old threads? It's such a joy to read them in present. Many more Bumping will be needed in years to come

 

[tennisaddict]

3 more USO and 1 more FO - then he definitely presents an argument as better than Fed - even accounting for weak era.

 

[Tenez101]

Better on clay already and will be better on hardcourt with 2 more USO or 1 more USO and 1 more AO.

 

[Tiki-Taka]

Well, Novak is greater on clay now. He will have to win 2 more HC Slams or 1 Slam + WTF to be greater on HC.

 

[Deleted member 410229]

Even if he wins 2 fo he is not better than federer.

 

[Noelan]

So USO 16 would be the one to leave fashionista in dust.

 

[Nonsense]

Considering Fed's spread is more even - 4 AO, 5 USO

Djokovic will likely need to win 1 USO and 1 AO more to get 7 AO, 3 USO (and the WTF this year) spread to leave little doubt... could do it by Jan of next year. Then he will have:

10 HC slams vs 9 for Fedr
14 HC Slam finals (7 and 7) vs 12 for Fedr (5 and 7)
6 WTF vs. 6 WTF for Fedr
21 HC Masters vs. 18 HC Masters for Fedr
29 HC Finals vs. 25 HC Masters Finals for Fedr

His Masters spread is also much better:
5 vs 4 at Indian Wells
6 vs. 2 at Miami
3 vs. 2 at Canada
0 vs. 7 at Cinci
3 vs. 2 at Shanghai
4 vs. 1 at Paris

While he does have Cinci missing from his resume, he has won more Masters than Fed at every other HC Masters tournament. And even at Cincy he has 5 finals appearances.

The only places overall you would say he's deficient is:
1. Not winning Cincy
2. Not reaching as many WTF finals (Fed has 4 more finals appearances).

Both aren't gamebreakers.

Fed will still have his claim as the fast HC GOAT while Novak will take away the slow HC and overall HC title. And ofcourse Novak has the time in front of him to add to his tally as well...

 

[NatF]

Looks inevitable that Djokovic will take over on HC at the moment.

 

[cockneyDjoker]

Djokovic can become greater than Federer on EVERY surface.

 

[kandamrgam]

Looks inevitable that Djokovic will take over on HC at the moment.

I always thought Djoker has a very good chance of overtaking Federer on HCs but after reading more posts here I realise it's not that straightforward to decide. I can see arguments on both sides. For e.g. there's some merit in saying Federer has better distribution (4, 5 vs 6, 2). But I also like the fact that Djoker's reign at one distinct type of surface (6 times winner at AO) is more supreme than Federer's (5 at UO). I am also not convinced now that if Djokovic wins one more 1 HC Major and a Finals he is better than Federer because Federer has countless more finals in those events, aren't they better than the extra Masters Djoker has?

The only way Djoker is better than Federer is if Djoker wins two more Majors, especially 2 UO then it is game over for Fed. But dont think that is easy.

Djoker is clearly the better clay courter, no doubt about that in my eyes.

 

[NatF]

I always thought Djoker has a very good chance of overtaking Federer on HCs but after reading more posts here I realise it's not that straightforward to decide. I can see arguments on both sides. For e.g. there's some merit in saying Federer has better distribution (4, 5 vs 6, 2). But I also like the fact that Djoker's reign at one distinct type of surface (6 times winner at AO) is more supreme than Federer's (5 at UO). I am also not convinced now that if Djokovic wins one more 1 HC Major and a Finals he is better than Federer because Federer has countless more finals in those events, aren't they better than the extra Masters Djoker has?

The only way Djoker is better than Federer is if Djoker wins two more Majors, especially 2 UO then it is game over for Fed. But dont think that is easy.

Djoker is clearly the better clay courter, no doubt about that in my eyes.

I prefer Federer's dominance and distribution. I also think he was better overall on HC at his peak. I would favour Federer potentially even if Djokovic reach 10 HC slams and certainly at 9.

Djokovic is better on clay though, Federer's lack of Rome hurts him in my eyes.

 

[Nonsense]

I always thought Djoker has a very good chance of overtaking Federer on HCs but after reading more posts here I realise it's not that straightforward to decide. I can see arguments on both sides. For e.g. there's some merit in saying Federer has better distribution (4, 5 vs 6, 2). But I also like the fact that Djoker's reign at one distinct type of surface (6 times winner at AO) is more supreme than Federer's (5 at UO). I am also not convinced now that if Djokovic wins one more 1 HC Major and a Finals he is better than Federer because Federer has countless more finals in those events, aren't they better than the extra Masters Djoker has?

The only way Djoker is better than Federer is if Djoker wins two more Majors, especially 2 UO then it is game over for Fed. But dont think that is easy.

Djoker is clearly the better clay courter, no doubt about that in my eyes.

Countless more finals in which events?

 

[user]

I also think he was better overall on HC at his peak. I would favour Federer potentially even if Djokovic reach 10 HC slams and certainly at 9.

One can also think that Nadal is better overall on HC at his "peak" than both Federer and Djokovic. But, as most of you fans of Federer like to say frequently, the number of titles is all that matters.

 

[kandamrgam]

I prefer Federer's dominance and distribution. I also think he was better overall on HC at his peak. I would favour Federer potentially even if Djokovic reach 10 HC slams and certainly at 9.

Djokovic is better on clay though, Federer's lack of Rome hurts him in my eyes.

Federer was never as dominant at UO as Djoker was at AO. May be overall on HCs..

 

[NatF]

One can also think that Nadal is better overall on HC at his "peak" than both Federer and Djokovic. But, as most of you fans of Federer like to say frequently, the number of titles is all that matters.

3 vs 9 isn't the same as 9 vs 10. Not to mention Federer's numbers on HC across a 4 year stretch were ridiculous - winning 7/8 slams. Nadal has nothing like that going for him. Anyway, I didn't say I would be in the majority. Maybe you fans of Djokovic should get that stick out of your ass.

 

[kandamrgam]

Countless more finals in which events?

AO + UO + WTF. Now that I checked Djoker actually has more HC finals than Federer! Didnt know that.

 

[Nonsense]

AO + UO + WTF. Now that I checked Djoker actually has more HC finals than Federer! Didnt know that.

Yeah, you were confusing me... since I had just written a long post on where Djokovic would be if he wins 1 more USO+WTF+AO just above in the thread.

Djokovic will have more HC Slams + HC Masters + same number of WTF + more slam finals + more HC Masters finals if that happens. Plus more Masters titles in 5 of the 6 HC Masters events.

Only thing he would not have at that time would be Cincy + WTF finals.

And he's got quite some time left to try and fill up those holes as well, and in case he wins more WTF titles, the finals stat becomes irrelevant for me. 7 titiles > 6titles + 4 finals for me. Finals only come into play when they're both tied.

 

[user]

3 vs 9 isn't the same as 9 vs 10.

You were talking about Federer being better at his "peak", it's no different than assuming Nadal is better than Federer at his "peak".

Not to mention Federer's numbers on HC across a 4 year stretch were ridiculous - winning 7/8 slams.

Which means he's won only 2 outside of those 4 years.

Anyway, I didn't say I would be in the majority. Maybe you fans of Djokovic should get that stick out of your ass.

I don't care what you think. I'm noting the inconsistency of a common fanboi's statements.

 

[NatF]

You were talking about Federer being better at his "peak", it's no different than assuming Nadal is better than Federer at his "peak".

Sure it's different, Federer has the results at his peak and Nadal doesn't. I was talking about the eye test anyway.

Which means he's won only 2 outside of those 4 years.

Indeed, Djokovic will have an argument for longevity of dominance if he carries on as he's going.

I don't care what you think. I'm noting the inconsistency of a common fanboi's statements.

Well I'm not a 'common fanboi'. I don't care what any other Fed fan thinks on the subject. If Djokovic gets 10 slams on HC he will be greater, but I was more impressed by Federer's play at his best.

 

[user]

Sure it's different, Federer has the results at his peak and Nadal doesn't. I was talking about the eye test anyway.

I'm not convinced. Djokovic as of now, has far better results on slow HC compared to Federer, but there will always be those that resort to subjective criteria such as "peak level" to determine that it is actually Federer who is better on the surface. I don't think an eye test is a valid argument, because we all know that leads us to the land of hypotheticals.

If Djokovic gets 10 slams on HC he will be greater, but I was more impressed by Federer's play at his best.

OFC, I woudn't expect anything different, because it's a subjective thing.

 

[NatF]

I'm not convinced. Djokovic as of now, has far better results on slow HC compared to Federer, but there will always be those that resort to subjective criteria such as "peak level" to determine that it is actually Federer who is better on the surface. I don't think an eye test is a valid argument, because we all know that leads us to the land of hypotheticals.

I don't claim to be completely objective about my favourites But I tend to gravitate to dominance, Djokovic lost to a lot of guys in 12-14 on HC. I'm just more impressed by Federer dominating the slow and fast HC's at the same time over a number of years. Djokovic will have good arguments at 9 HC slams as will Federer. I will concede that Djokovic is greater at 10 - though I would like him to have 3+ USO titles to seal it for good.

OFC, I woudn't expect anything different, because it's a subjective thing.

Indeed, but even how we weigh various statistics is also subjective is it not? Obviously total titles is a huge deal but if someone weighs what they saw with their eyes above 10% more slams I don't think that's a big deal tbh. You won't catch me trying to convince people that Federer is still greater - for all I know Djokovic will blow my mind this summer anyway with his level of play on the HC.

 

[Nonsense]

I don't claim to be completely objective about my favourites But I tend to gravitate to dominance, Djokovic lost to a lot of guys in 12-14 on HC. I'm just more impressed by Federer dominating the slow and fast HC's at the same time over a number of years. Djokovic will have good arguments at 9 HC slams as will Federer. I will concede that Djokovic is greater at 10 - though I would like him to have 3+ USO titles to seal it for good.



Indeed, but even how we weigh various statistics is also subjective is it not? Obviously total titles is a huge deal but if someone weighs what they saw with their eyes above 10% more slams I don't think that's a big deal tbh. You won't catch me trying to convince people that Federer is still greater - for all I know Djokovic will blow my mind this summer anyway with his level of play on the HC.

I think 12-13 atleast had much superior competition in place. Murray and Rafa in their primes as well... 14 really was a missed opportunity for Novak at the USO (at the AO Wawa was a bit inspired as usual).

Obviously, I go for the numbers over the subjective eye test though. And Federer has the greater numbers still... and at the end of the day the record books don't remember who the losers were.