Djokovic did not become No.1 until Federer was 30

Beckerserve

Legend
Even then, he had 1 big season where he was the top dog (2011) and otherwise had to wait until his 28 year old season to start dominating and building up slams. Basically he came out of the strong era (ended after 2013) with 6 slams. Even in the first weak era year (2014), Djokovic managed to lose to Wawrinka and Nishikori in slams and barely scraped past a well past his prime Federer at Wimbledon. Djokovic had to wait until his main rivals in terms of athletic peak were Gen useless clowns and NextGen babies before he could dominate and won 2/3 of his slams in that environment.
And he had 6 out of 9 m1000 events on his best surface and half the majors on his best surface his whole career. I am starting to question if he is 3rd of all time tbh. I would argue pethaps Laver Borg and Sampras ahead of him
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
And he had 6 out of 9 m1000 events on his best surface and half the majors on his best surface his whole career. I am starting to question if he is 3rd of all time tbh. I would argue pethaps Laver Borg and Sampras ahead of him
well Laver had 3 slams on grass anyways but imagine if Borg or Nadal got to play 2 slams on clay each year or PETE getting 2 on (real) grass each year
 

Beckerserve

Legend
well Laver had 3 slams on grass anyways but imagine if Borg or Nadal got to play 2 slams on clay each year or PETE getting 2 on (real) grass each year
Personally i have Djokovic at 5 below Nadal Federer borg and sampras.
Djokovic has everything in his favour yet still trails. He is essentially a more disciplined Agassi.
Djokovics Wimbledon record flatters him. Nadal had to deal with prime Federer. Djokovic only beat Federer once he was 33 there. He definitely benefited from Federer and Nadal being way past their grass court best and nobody else knowing how to play on it.
 

Imperator

Hall of Fame
Personally i have Djokovic at 5 below Nadal Federer borg and sampras.
Djokovic has everything in his favour yet still trails. He is essentially a more disciplined Agassi.
Djokovics Wimbledon record flatters him. Nadal had to deal with prime Federer. Djokovic only beat Federer once he was 33 there. He definitely benefited from Federer and Nadal being way past their grass court best and nobody else knowing how to play on it.
Considering Nadal and Djokovic are only one year apart, Nadal's decline due to age can't be used as an excuse. Djokovic should be given credit for declining slower, it's not something you can use against him.
 

xFedal

Legend
Did Novak not rise until Federer declined, or did Roger only lose a step once Novak established himself?

An endless TTW argument that seems to depend almost entirely on who you root for. And both sides think the answer is obvious.
More like Lose a step. The big decline came in 2013 statistically, but Fed increased his level in 14 and 15, 16 was injury year but Fed had another primeish year in 2017.
 

mwym

Rookie
WHEN Djokovic's mind was on a vacation, Federer won 3 Slams aged 35-36 within a year. Or is it actually BECAUSE Djokovic's mind was om a vacation. It is not equally likely for Djokovic at that same age, but who is going to bet he won't do the exact same thing if Nadal does not retire before that time.

Using age for 'anything Big3' is such a waste of life, both writing and reading.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Great Post and well put, better than I Could.
It is not a great post as it completely neglected the fact that Novak spend YEARS in the shadow of the other two just below them. Nothing to do with Federer, who, once he got the ball rolling, never looked back. Novak staled for years: held back by the others. Even after his real first dominant year he couldn't hold it together, so your theory (and the one of the guy you are quoting) doesn't work.

:cool:

P.S. I understand that for a Novak fan it can be a good theory.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Considering Nadal and Djokovic are only one year apart, Nadal's decline due to age can't be used as an excuse. Djokovic should be given credit for declining slower, it's not something you can use against him.
He also peaked way slower and had much worse competition chasing him. He can definitely have the title of healthiest of all time though
 

Beckerserve

Legend
It is not a great post as it completely neglected the fact that Novak spend YEARS in the shadow of the other two just below them. Nothing to do with Federer, who, once he got the ball rolling, never looked back. Novak staled for years: held back by the others. Even after his real first dominant year he couldn't hold it together, so your theory (and the one of the guy you are quoting) doesn't work.

:cool:

P.S. I understand that for a Novak fan it can be a good theory.
Really seems Djokovic and his supporters are not coping well with 20-18.
The bottom line is he had to wait for Federer and Nadal.to decline before getting to the top yet was still losing to Nishikori Wawrinka Murrray etc. Nadal and Federer at their best were simply unbeatable at their prime.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Really seems Djokovic and his supporters are not coping well with 20-18.
The bottom line is he had to wait for Federer and Nadal.to decline before getting to the top yet was still losing to Nishikori Wawrinka Murrray etc. Nadal and Federer at their best were simply unbeatable at their prime.
Everyone is beatable in the right circumstances, but it truly is amazing what some people are pushing. Djokovic was top 20 in 2006, top 3 in 2007, made a Major final in 2007 and won two M1000s, won a Major and the TMC plus another two M1000s in 2008 and STILL spend another two years in the supportive role: 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Not counting 2006 as his first year as a breakthrough year in the top echelon.

:cool:
 
Last edited:

Beckerserve

Legend
Everyone is beatable in the right circumstances, but it truly is amazing what some people are pushing. Djokovic was top 20 in 2006, top 3 in 2007, made a Major final in 2007 and won two M1000s, won a Major and the TMC plus another two M1000s in 2008 and STILL spend another two years in the supportive role: 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Not counting 2006 as his first year as a breakthrough year in the top echelon.

:cool:
One regular poster on here admitted to only posting threads here since 2011 the other day. He is a Djokovic supporter and one common theme amongst that fanbase is tennis only really counts from 2011.
Djokovics best is great but was never good enough to breakthrough peak Federer and Nadal. The evidence is clear as a bell.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Really seems Djokovic and his supporters are not coping well with 20-18.
The bottom line is he had to wait for Federer and Nadal.to decline before getting to the top yet was still losing to Nishikori Wawrinka Murrray etc. Nadal and Federer at their best were simply unbeatable at their prime.
20-18 hardly matters, as we know, no one cared when Emerson was leading the slam count. slams won in inflationary periods like 2014-present need to be discounted at an appropriate rate
 

Imperator

Hall of Fame
He also peaked way slower and had much worse competition chasing him. He can definitely have the title of healthiest of all time though
Nadal peaked 3 years after his first slam win, so did Djokovic.

Really seems Djokovic and his supporters are not coping well with 20-18.
The bottom line is he had to wait for Federer and Nadal.to decline before getting to the top yet was still losing to Nishikori Wawrinka Murrray etc. Nadal and Federer at their best were simply unbeatable at their prime.
Yeah, Djokovic fans are the ones who can't cope, just a week after #18. And the reason this thread exists as well the one who made it show how accurate this is. Hilarious.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
20-18 hardly matters, as we know, no one cared when Emerson was leading the slam count. slams won in inflationary periods like 2014-present need to be discounted at an appropriate rate
Nadal v Djokovic matters as they are same age. Nadal is better than Djokovic. But overall you are right. Any GOAT debate properly done is between Laver Borg Sampras Federer and Nadal. The Big 5.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Nadal peaked 3 years after his first slam win, so did Djokovic.



Yeah, Djokovic fans are the ones who can't cope, just a week after #18. And the reason this thread exists as well the one who made it show how accurate this is. Hilarious.
18 is less than 20 no?
 

Imperator

Hall of Fame
20-18 hardly matters, as we know, no one cared when Emerson was leading the slam count. slams won in inflationary periods like 2014-present need to be discounted at an appropriate rate
Emerson's record isn't held in high regard because he won his slams before the Open Era, back when only amateurs could play them.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Did Novak not rise until Federer declined, or did Roger only lose a step once Novak established himself?

An endless TTW argument that seems to depend almost entirely on who you root for. And both sides think the answer is obvious.
Roger started to lose a step in 2008, which biologically/analytically speaking makes perfect sense. Athletes start to decline after age 25/26.

And with the legendary younger competition he was facing, even losing a small % was enough.

By the time Novak started to pigeonize him, he was well past it. Good on him for persevering.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Really seems Djokovic and his supporters are not coping well with 20-18.
The bottom line is he had to wait for Federer and Nadal.to decline before getting to the top yet was still losing to Nishikori Wawrinka Murrray etc. Nadal and Federer at their best were simply unbeatable at their prime.
Enjoy 2021 bud. I heavily suspect Djokovic-Nadal will be tied at 21-21 after 2022 AO, then its game over for Nadal’s GOAT claim :whistle:
 

TripleATeam

Legend
I think i am right in saying by time Djokovic got to no.1 for 1st time Federer was 30, or just close to it.
To put that into perspective Edberg, courier, borg , mcenroe connors lendl becker sampras were all way past their best at 29/30.
We see some commentators say Djokovic broke the Fedal duopoly but that actually is incorrect. It is more accurate to say he replaced an ageing Federer as Nadals main rival. But he never shifted peak Federer.
Djokovic's task wasn't to take the #1 title from Federer. It was to take the #1 title from the next-youngest ATG (Nadal). He did that when Nadal was age 24. Sounds to me like he dethroned an ATG (GOAT contender) when he was at his peak. Additionally, Djokovic had a post-peak Federer to contend with, and did so.

Also, why would it make sense for a pre-prime Djokovic to take out a peak Federer? Djokovic and Federer both started playing their best tennis around 23, whereas Nadal was the exception with the absurdly good start. Naturally, as soon as Djokovic hit his peak age (23), Federer started losing. Djokovic still went 2-2 in slams in 2008-2010 (roughly Novak 21-23 and Federer 27-29).

Plus, Federer was on the heels of a 8 slam final streak and a 23 slam SF streak. I don't think you can call that aging.

But hey, it's a circular argument. All we can agree on is that Djokovic stole #1 from a prime Nadal.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Djokovic's task wasn't to take the #1 title from Federer. It was to take the #1 title from the next-youngest ATG (Nadal). He did that when Nadal was age 24. Sounds to me like he dethroned an ATG (GOAT contender) when he was at his peak. Additionally, Djokovic had a post-peak Federer to contend with, and did so.

Also, why would it make sense for a pre-prime Djokovic to take out a peak Federer? Djokovic and Federer both started playing their best tennis around 23, whereas Nadal was the exception with the absurdly good start. Naturally, as soon as Djokovic hit his peak age (23), Federer started losing. Djokovic still went 2-2 in slams in 2008-2010 (roughly Novak 21-23 and Federer 27-29).

Plus, Federer was on the heels of a 8 slam final streak and a 23 slam SF streak. I don't think you can call that aging.

But hey, it's a circular argument. All we can agree on is that Djokovic stole #1 from a prime Nadal.
But Nadal got the main event...Slam record. So i call that a W for Rafa.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
But Nadal got the main event...Slam record. So i call that a W for Rafa.
You can call it what you like... Djokovic still took the #1 from a 24 year old GOAT contender, now has the most #1 weeks in history, and will be pushing for the slam record as well.
 
Borg doesn't have any records, he's still an icon of the game. Fed will always have his place in the history of the game.
Borg holds the record for most consecutive Wimbledon titles together with Federer. He's also the only one with 3 channel slams, and not only that, they were consecutive. Best win/lose record at grand slams and Wimbledon, most consecutive matches and sets won in a slam (matches in W, sets in RG), best ever win percentage vs top10 players, most consecutive years with an overall win percentage over %90, best and second best winning streaks ever.
I do get your point that even if the records are broken, he will still be an icon regardless.

Nadal peaked 3 years after his first slam win, so did Djokovic.
Well, being one year younger, he peaked 3 years later... one could argue that he did peak slower (4 years later relative to age).
I'm kinda curious to see if that 3 year gap will repeat itself with Thiem :unsure:
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Federer fans ... I know not a moment goes by when you're not thinking of him but there's only so many heads Djokovic can occupy at the same time. Please give it a break.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Djokovic remained #1 post 30, what does that say about Federer's longevity? For someone who is praised for his longevity, he seems to be 3rd in that department.

Also, if not for Djokovic defeating Federer on many occasions, there's a good chance Federer adds a few more slams, and rankings points to go with them.
Except Fed post 30 had peak Nadal, peak Djokovic, peak Murray, peak Del Potro and Djokovic post 30 had an old Nadal, fossil Fed, Zverev and Berrettini
 
Djokovic remained #1 post 30, what does that say about Federer's longevity? For someone who is praised for his longevity, he seems to be 3rd in that department.

Also, if not for Djokovic defeating Federer on many occasions, there's a good chance Federer adds a few more slams, and rankings points to go with them.
Well, it dances on the 'weak era' tightrope, but I think it's fair to say that Federer's competition post 30 absolutely craps on Djokodal's. Your second line kind of adds that context to your first.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
What a dumb subject! 30 is a just number, a very young age in today's sports world!

Just one of many examples: Ronaldo won 3 straight CL's after that age; doubtful if RM would've won any w/o him.

When you lose to a guy 3 times after holding double matchpoints!
 

Jai

Rookie
Seems that OP is having difficult time to cope after #18 and #311. :(
Yup. His posts are positively embarrassing to read, especially is one is a fan of both Novak and Rafa, as I am.
I get that this GOAT debate is often impassioned and partisan and heated, but there has to be some measure
of logic!
For instance, couple of the gems in this logic-and-facts-averse thread, is where he says in one post that
"The bottom line is he had to wait for Federer and Nadal.to decline before getting to the top..." and also says, without
the slightest tinge of irony, "Nadal v Djokovic matters as they are same age"....
So now as per OP's logic, we have 2 players who are merely 11 months apart, and the one who has garnered more than
100 weeks additional as No.1 has somehow "waited" till the other one "declined".
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
What a dumb subject! 30 is a just number, a very young age in today's sports world!

Just one of many examples: Ronaldo won 3 straight CL's after that age; doubtful if RM would've won any w/o him.

When you lose to a guy 3 times after holding double matchpoints!
Ronaldo never won 3 straight CL's after that age. I think you mean Cristiano
 
Top