Djokovic Era - Who has he "hurt the most" - Federer, Murray, Nadal

[McEnroeisanartist]

In the Djokovic Era, 2011-2015, who has he hypothetically "hurt the most?"

Federer -
defeated him in 6 Grand Slam matches including 3 Grand Slam finals, 3 Grand Slam semifinals
defeated him in 2 Year End Finals final
defeated him in 4 Masters Series finals
stood in the way of 2 year end #1s
stood in the way of 1 year end #2

Murray
defeated him in 6 Grand Slam matches including 3 Grand Slam finals, 2 Grand Slam semifinals
defeated him in 5 Masters Series finals
stood in the way of 1 year end #1

Nadal
defeated him in 3 Grand Slam matches including 3 Grand Slam finals
defeated him in 1 Year End Finals
defeated him in 6 Masters Series finals
stood in the way of 1 year end #1

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Federer.

 

[weakera]

It's very clearly Federer.

 

[beltsman]

Federer of course. Although Federer really just hurt himself by declining, it's not so much anything Djokovic has done.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Federer of course. Although Federer really just hurt himself by declining, it's not so much anything Djokovic has done.

Such self harm.

 

[bjsnider]

Djokovic has hurt Nadal the most. Nadal's legacy prior to 2011 was shaping up to be the guy who Federer couldn't beat, who had a winning record against everybody, and who was rapidly gobbling up all the majors and about to overtake Federer's total there. Mac was starting to suggest Nadal might be the GOAT. But Nadal hasn't been able to overcome Djokovic since 2011 on any kind of a consistent basis, and Djokovic now beats him without dropping a set. By defeating Nadal at RG, Djokovic put a blemish on Nadal's reputation at that event, and one that Borg doesn't have -- namely losses there to two different players. Borg lost two matches to the same guy. Borg now has something on Nadal at RG again. Djokovic has not yet thrown that big a monkey wrench into Federer's GOAT claims. Had Federer won his matches vs. Djokovic in this time frame Fed would still be considered the GOAT, so nothing would have changed. Come back in a couple years time and this might be a different story.

 

[Fedalforever]

Djokovic has hurt Nadal the most. Nadal's legacy prior to 2011 was shaping up to be the guy who Federer couldn't beat, who had a winning record against everybody, and who was rapidly gobbling up all the majors and about to overtake Federer's total there. Mac was starting to suggest Nadal might be the GOAT. But Nadal hasn't been able to overcome Djokovic since 2011 on any kind of a consistent basis, and Djokovic now beats him without dropping a set. By defeating Nadal at RG, Djokovic put a blemish on Nadal's reputation at that event, and one that Borg doesn't have -- namely losses there to two different players. Borg lost two matches to the same guy. Borg now has something on Nadal at RG again. Djokovic has not yet thrown that big a monkey wrench into Federer's GOAT claims. Had Federer won his matches vs. Djokovic in this time frame Fed would still be considered the GOAT, so nothing would have changed. Come back in a couple years time and this might be a different story.

Lol Borg has nothing on Nadal at RG. Nada. Zilch.

 

[sarmpas]

Numerically Federer's losses add up to the most, that's uncontestable fact. However the OP hasn't defined 'hurt the most'. Federer has so many records already and is already one of the best of all time. His standing can't go much higher with or without the titles he could have won. OTOH Nadal with the extra 3 slams moves into Federer territory and Murray would be considered so much more highly vs other ATG with an extra 3 slams.

 

[Fedalforever]

Not sure how anyone could say Nadal or Murray with a straightface. Murray is a mug who actually benefitted from Djokovic being a choker and got 2 slams. If Djokovic had not existed, Federer would have definitely won Wimbledon 2014,2015; USO 2015, AO 2011. That's 4 slams more. Nadal would have won Wimbledon 2011 and AO 2012. Fed had mono in AO 08 so Tsonga would have crushed him anyway. I'm not sure about USO 2010/2011. I think Federer takes one of those but not both.....but even disregarding that, it's 4 slams lost by Fed to 2 by Nadal...

 

[Djokovic2011]

Definitely Federer.

 

[djokerer]

He just killed Federer

 

[zep]

By defeating Nadal at RG, Djokovic put a blemish on Nadal's reputation at that event, and one that Borg doesn't have -- namely losses there to two different players. Borg lost two matches to the same guy. Borg now has something on Nadal at RG again.

Don't agree with this part. If Nadal keeps playing there is a good chance that he would lose to other players as well. That does not change what he has already achieved--9 RG titles in 10 years which is much better than Borg's. Borg retired at 27, by that age Nadal had 8 titles and 1 loss.

 

[mattosgrant]

Federer for sure. He cost Federer at minimum 4 slams- 2011 Australian, 2014 Wimbledon, 2015 Wimbledon, 2015 U.S Open. However realistically it could have been as many as 6- 2008 Australian, 2011 U.S Open

He cost Nadal at most 3 slams- 2011 Wimbledon, 2011 U.S Open, 2012 Australian Open.

He cost Murray at most 2 slams- 2013 Australian Open, 2015 Australian Open. I dont think he beats Stan at both of those anyway though, probably splits those with Stan.

He also cost Federer several WTF titles. He cost Nadal 1 (2013).

He cost Nadal #1 in 2011, but cost Federer #1 in 2012, 2014, maybe 2015. Nadal has mostly been too injured after 2011 to be #1 much even without Djokovic, so it hasnt really been Djokovic taking that away from him. 2013 is the only full year of tennis Nadal played since then other than 2015 where he was obviously nowhere near #1 form even without Djokovic.

 

[powerangle]

Federer. Without Djoko, he'd further distance himself with his statistical GOAT claims.

 

[mattosgrant]

I also think the part about Borg losing to only 1 player at RG (Panatta twice) and Nadal now 2 is irrelevant when Borg retired at 25. Everyone knows if Borg played into his late 20s and beyond he would have lost to more players at RG. Nadal also would have lost to other players at RG had he played it before 2005 (aged 17 or younger). All in all a meaningless stat in everyway.

 

[bjsnider]

I also think the part about Borg losing to only 1 player at RG (Panatta twice) and Nadal now 2 is irrelevant when Borg retired at 25. Everyone knows if Borg played into his late 20s and beyond he would have lost to more players at RG. Nadal also would have lost to other players at RG had he played it before 2005 (aged 17 or younger). All in all a meaningless stat in everyway.

How do you know these things?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

No doubt it is Federer. Serious damage done to Roger by Novak.

 

[mistik]

He damaged the sport.Enough said.

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

Djokovic has hurt Nadal the most. Nadal's legacy prior to 2011 was shaping up to be the guy who Federer couldn't beat, who had a winning record against everybody, and who was rapidly gobbling up all the majors and about to overtake Federer's total there. Mac was starting to suggest Nadal might be the GOAT. But Nadal hasn't been able to overcome Djokovic since 2011 on any kind of a consistent basis, and Djokovic now beats him without dropping a set. By defeating Nadal at RG, Djokovic put a blemish on Nadal's reputation at that event, and one that Borg doesn't have -- namely losses there to two different players. Borg lost two matches to the same guy. Borg now has something on Nadal at RG again. Djokovic has not yet thrown that big a monkey wrench into Federer's GOAT claims. Had Federer won his matches vs. Djokovic in this time frame Fed would still be considered the GOAT, so nothing would have changed. Come back in a couple years time and this might be a different story.

bull$hit. What difference is it having 2 losses to 2 different guys compared to 2 losses to the same guy. Its still 2 fkin losses.

 

[swordtennis]

Federer. I do see where bjsnider is coming from tho. Djokovic did slow down the nadal blitzkrieg that was shaping up after 2010. Nadal would have gotten 18 majors most likely. Nadal really had to wreck himself staving off djokovic during that 2012-2014. Not sure many realize just how much nadal has to work to beat djokovic. Fed was always easier for nadal to polish off.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Without Novak, Federer would be the outright record holder at AO, W and USO. He would also probably have at least equalled Sampras' year end number ones. Djokovic hurt him pretty bad.

 

[swordtennis]

Fed would have like 25 majors. Good god

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

federer???

are you crazy people???

NADAL IS, before the raise of nole 2011, nadal was for sure in way to break fed´s record.

if nole 2011 would never raise, THIS FEDERER WOULD MAYBE NEVER EXIST, because nadal would destroyed roger´s head beating him in much more matches and breaking his record.

nole possibly, saved federer´s legacy.

the guy who need to break the records is nadal not federer

 

[NatF]

Federer and quite clearly at that.

 

[Vcore89]

Murray obviously. Federer and Nadal already had their lion's share of the slams, it is about time for Murray to shine just as Federer and Nadal are in decline. However, the Djokovic surge prevented Murray from advancing himself.

 

[duaneeo]

Federer already has the record of most-slam titles and most WTFs titles. It would have been nice to have more, but still, his legacy hasn't been hurt by Djokovic.

I say Nadal. Had he won 2011 Wimbledon and the US Open, and 2012 Australian Open, not only would he now be tied for most slam titles won, but he would have won the 'Rafa Slam' (and by later winning 2012 RG, he would have held 5 slams titles at once), and the CGS twice. Tying for most slam wins, and with the CGS twice, the Rafa Slam, Most Masters titles, the WTFs, and Olympic gold, it would have made it difficult to claim anyone but Nadal is the GOAT.

 

[terribleIVAN]

federer???

are you crazy people???

NADAL IS, before the raise of nole 2011, nadal was for sure in way to break fed´s record.

if nole 2011 would never raise, THIS FEDERER WOULD MAYBE NEVER EXIST, because nadal would destroyed roger´s head beating him in much more matches and breaking his record.

nole possibly, saved federer´s legacy.

the guy who need to break the records is nadal not federer

Good point.
As others mentioned, Nadal had constantly to drive himself into the ground in order to beat Novak, and it shortened his prime, especially the years 2011-2013.

Now it's true Novak dented Roger's records, but he didn't affect Roger's physique as much as he did Nadal's.

I still get mad thinking how things could have gotten easier for Rafa had he dumped his stupid uncle Tony, who clearly had ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE how to beat 2011 & onwards Novak, except
spilling his nephew last breath on the court.

 

[mattosgrant]

The only possible case I see for Nadal as being hurt more than Federer is if you argue that physically he overspent himself just for Djokovic and that possibly cost him his 2009 season (that Madrid match), missing the end of 2012/start of 2013, and his big physical burnout midway through 2014 and diminished state today. That costing him X number of majors and other achievements in addition to the 3 he might have lost due to Djokovic in 2011/2012. While that is a feasible conjecture I dont buy it. Nadal's playing style inevitably was going to lead to both major periodic injuries and early physical decline/ burnout. I see all his problems in that regard, the poorly timed injuries, the early decline, happening regardless.

 

[Nachiket Nolefam]

Fedfans.

 

[mattosgrant]

Federer already has the record of most-slam titles and most WTFs titles. It would have been nice to have more, but still, his legacy hasn't been hurt by Djokovic.

I say Nadal. Had he won 2011 Wimbledon and the US Open, and 2012 Australian Open, not only would he now be tied for most slam titles won, but he would have won the 'Rafa Slam' (and by later winning 2012 RG, he would have held 5 slams titles at once), and the CGS twice. Tying for most slam wins, and with the CGS twice, the Rafa Slam, Most Masters titles, the WTFs, and Olympic gold, it would have made it difficult to claim anyone but Nadal is the GOAT.

Well if we assume Federer winning the 2011 Australian Open then Nadal would have never held the slam record, even temporarily, even if we assume him winning the 3 slams you list (which I agree he would have likely won). The closest Nadal would have gotten is 18 to 17 in mid 2014, with based on what has happened since Federer pulling well ahead again since then without Djokovic.

CGS isnt that big a deal IMO. Most rank Agassi behind Lendl and Connors who also have 8 slams and dont have the CGS, and even McEnroe who has 7 and doesnt have 2 of the 4 slams.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

In the Djokovic Era, 2011-2015, who has he hypothetically "hurt the most?"

Federer -
defeated him in 6 Grand Slam matches including 3 Grand Slam finals, 3 Grand Slam semifinals
defeated him in 2 Year End Finals final
defeated him in 4 Masters Series finals
stood in the way of 2 year end #1s
stood in the way of 1 year end #2

Murray
defeated him in 6 Grand Slam matches including 3 Grand Slam finals, 2 Grand Slam semifinals
defeated him in 5 Masters Series finals
stood in the way of 1 year end #1

Nadal
defeated him in 3 Grand Slam matches including 3 Grand Slam finals
defeated him in 1 Year End Finals
defeated him in 6 Masters Series finals
stood in the way of 1 year end #1

Haha, not really..

Take out Djoker and 34 year old Fed ends this year at No. 1.

 

[mattosgrant]

Yeah Federer wins 2 slams and the WTF without Djokovic. Murray still might win 0 slams, certainly doesnt win 2. Stan still takes RG, that is pretty obvious. Australian Open could go either way between Stan and Murray as the likely final now.

It seems pretty clear Federer would be the YE#1 in that scenario.

 

[duaneeo]

CGS isnt that big a deal IMO. Most rank Agassi behind Lendl and Connors who also have 8 slams and dont have the CGS, and even McEnroe who has 7 and doesnt have 2 of the 4 slams.

CGS is a huge deal, and I'm sure Djokovic agrees. And, who ranks Agassi behind Lendl and Connors? The Tennis Channel's Greatest Of All Time list placed Agassi over McEnroe, Lendl, and Connors.

 

[mattosgrant]

CGS is a huge deal, and I'm sure Djokovic agrees. And, who ranks Agassi behind Lendl and Connors? The Tennis Channel's Greatest Of All Time list placed Agassi over McEnroe, Lendl, and Connors.

The Tennis Channel list is not in touch with reality in many respects. Sharapova below Capriati? (PS- in addition to a ridiculous ranking this also makes a mockery of the Career Slam relevance). Gonzales as 22nd best man and 11 mens spots below Roy Emerson!?!! The Gonzales ranking was already enough I refused to take anything else seriously since anyone who knows squat about tennis, any of the sports real historians and past greats know Gonzales is easily top 5 minimum.

The vast majority of lists from ex players, tennis experts, writers, have Lendl and Connors higher than Agassi. McEnroe generally too.

 

[Elektra]

Federer

Novak has mentally broken him anytime they play in the big tournaments.

 

[Mustard]

Nadal has got in plenty of big victories of his own against Djokovic during "Djokovic's era", including 4 straight wins in majors. Federer and Murray have been hurt much more, since they've gotten very little out of "Djokovic's era" in majors compared to Nadal.

 

[Mustard]

I say Nadal. Had he won 2011 Wimbledon and the US Open, and 2012 Australian Open, not only would he now be tied for most slam titles won, but he would have won the 'Rafa Slam' (and by later winning 2012 RG, he would have held 5 slams titles at once), and the CGS twice. Tying for most slam wins, and with the CGS twice, the Rafa Slam, Most Masters titles, the WTFs, and Olympic gold, it would have made it difficult to claim anyone but Nadal is the GOAT.

Had this new Djokovic (since 2011) never appeared on the scene and Djokovic had carried on in his pre-2011 mode of operation, then Nadal and Federer would probably have around 20 majors each by now. I don't think Nadal would have declined as much physically either. Nadal had to dig so deep to eventually overcome that new Djokovic after 7 straight losses, but it came at a cost. People talk about Nadal taking long breaks from tennis, but they've only increased a lot since mid 2012. Prior to that, there was only the late 2005-early 2006 layoff and late 2008 layoff, really.

 

[duaneeo]

The vast majority of lists from ex players, tennis experts, writers, have Lendl and Connors higher than Agassi. McEnroe generally too.

You may not agree with TTC's list, but the list is there, and was put together by a group of "ex players, tennis experts, and writers". Who are those you refer to that rank Agassi below Lendl and Connors?

Had this new Djokovic (since 2011) never appeared on the scene and Djokovic had carried on in his pre-2011 mode of operation, then Nadal and Federer would probably have around 20 majors each by now.

With the hypothetical question, I'm looking at it with Djokovic still on the scene, but having opposite results against just one of the players (not all).

 

[mattosgrant]

Bud Collins, Jon Barret, Rod Laver, Jack Kramer, Tennis World, Tennis Magazine have all consistently said they rank Lendl and Connors higher than Agassi. John McEnroe ranks Agassi higher but Agassi is his buddy and he hates both Connors and Lendl, his ex bitter rivals.

In any case any list which has Gonzales as the 22nd best mens tennis player of all time and Emerson as the 11th is nonsense and I couldnt give a darn about it. I dont care if it is supposably written by "ex players, tennis experts, and writers" whose names they mysteriously dont list. Nobody who is seriously knowledgable would ever rank Gonzales that low, they just wouldnt. The ex greats at the sport would laugh in the face of such a ranking.

 

[mattosgrant]

How do you know these things?

Obviously we can never know sure but Nadal failing to win RG when he was ranked outside the top 20 and barely making an impact in any of the tour events, including on clay, is a pretty safe bet.

Borg continuing unbeatable dominance on clay as he approached his 30s when in reality he was too burnt out to continue playing at 25, is presumptuous and far fetched as well.

I actually do think you could make some cases for Borg vs Nadal on clay. They would have to be purely subjective things such as peak playing level, hypothetical head to head match up, depth of the clay field, as there is little in the way statistically in anything, but you still could. One thing that could be pointed out is Borg's 78 RG even topped Nadal's 2008 in sheer dominance (games lost, etc...) That Borg only lost to 1 player at RG (Panatta twice so still 2 losses) when he retired atleast from serious full time pro tennis and grand slam particpation at 25, and Nadal 2 losses to 2 players when he is still playing on at 29 and missed early years he was on tour that he was a very unlikely winner is a meaningless stat though.

 

[Nachiket Nolefam]

Nadal on clay > Borg on clay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rest of the players on clay. Easy.

 

[bjsnider]

Obviously we can never know sure but Nadal failing to win RG when he was ranked outside the top 20 and barely making an impact in any of the tour events, including on clay, is a pretty safe bet.

Borg continuing unbeatable dominance on clay as he approached his 30s when in reality he was too burnt out to continue playing at 25, is presumptuous and far fetched as well.

I actually do think you could make some cases for Borg vs Nadal on clay. They would have to be purely subjective things such as peak playing level, hypothetical head to head match up, depth of the clay field, as there is little in the way statistically in anything, but you still could. One thing that could be pointed out is Borg's 78 RG even topped Nadal's 2008 in sheer dominance (games lost, etc...) That Borg only lost to 1 player at RG (Panatta twice so still 2 losses) when he retired atleast from serious full time pro tennis and grand slam particpation at 25, and Nadal 2 losses to 2 players when he is still playing on at 29 and missed early years he was on tour that he was a very unlikely winner is a meaningless stat though.

I agree. We can never know. You said in your original post that "everyone knows". The only thing we do know for sure is that Borg lost to one player, and Nadal has now lost to two.

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal actually lost to him 4 times in GS matches and 3 GS finals. The answer to this question is a tie between Nadal and Federer. If 2011 never happened, Nadal would most likely have 17 GS right now. He dominated in 2010 and looked to continue that streak. No one could stop him until Djokovic. If Djokovic wasn't in Federer's way, Federer would have 9 Wimbledons right now and probably another US Open. That would be 20+ GS and no one would probably ever break that record. So it's a tie for me.

 

[mattosgrant]

I agree. We can never know. You said in your original post that "everyone knows". The only thing we do know for sure is that Borg lost to one player, and Nadal has now lost to two.

and in the end it doesnt matter for all the reasons I stated. As you can see everyone is in agreement with me on that point. If you really want to make a case for Borg against Nadal on clay you can do better than that.

 

[ABCD]

Obviously we can never know sure but Nadal failing to win RG when he was ranked outside the top 20 and barely making an impact in any of the tour events, including on clay, is a pretty safe bet.

Borg continuing unbeatable dominance on clay as he approached his 30s when in reality he was too burnt out to continue playing at 25, is presumptuous and far fetched as well.

I actually do think you could make some cases for Borg vs Nadal on clay. They would have to be purely subjective things such as peak playing level, hypothetical head to head match up, depth of the clay field, as there is little in the way statistically in anything, but you still could. One thing that could be pointed out is Borg's 78 RG even topped Nadal's 2008 in sheer dominance (games lost, etc...) That Borg only lost to 1 player at RG (Panatta twice so still 2 losses) when he retired atleast from serious full time pro tennis and grand slam particpation at 25, and Nadal 2 losses to 2 players when he is still playing on at 29 and missed early years he was on tour that he was a very unlikely winner is a meaningless stat though.

I remember watching Borg on W like it was yesterday. I rotted every time for Connors, to be bitterly disappointed. He was so better than his peers beating them with unprecedented ease. He had this aura of Swedish coolness (like he accepts wins and defeats equally). However, when field started to be competitive in a sense that his matches become tight, he retired. Why, I don't know, but it looked like that it was difficult for him to play tight matches. Borg looked so much better than the rest. He had technique different from anybody else. When you watched him you thought "This is how tennis will look like in the future", which is exactly what happened. There is a lot of Borg in Nadal and Djokovic, less so in Federer.

 

[bjsnider]

and in the end it doesnt matter for all the reasons I stated. As you can see everyone is in agreement with me on that point. If you really want to make a case for Borg against Nadal on clay you can do better than that.

I'm not making any case, only stating a fact.

 

[Mustard]

For some reason, there are lots of myths about Borg's retirement, like that he retired because of McEnroe. The reality was much more political, in terms of disputes with the ITF.

 

[veroniquem]

In the Djokovic Era, 2011-2015, who has he hypothetically "hurt the most?"

Federer -
defeated him in 6 Grand Slam matches including 3 Grand Slam finals, 3 Grand Slam semifinals
defeated him in 2 Year End Finals final
defeated him in 4 Masters Series finals
stood in the way of 2 year end #1s
stood in the way of 1 year end #2

Murray
defeated him in 6 Grand Slam matches including 3 Grand Slam finals, 2 Grand Slam semifinals
defeated him in 5 Masters Series finals
stood in the way of 1 year end #1

Nadal
defeated him in 3 Grand Slam matches including 3 Grand Slam finals
defeated him in 1 Year End Finals
defeated him in 6 Masters Series finals
stood in the way of 1 year end #1

Let's see
At WTF: Fed since Fed was the dominant WTF player when Djoko took over: 3 finals/4 matches since 2012 won over Fed. Very clear-cut change of guard there.
At AO: Murray: 4 losses to Djoko, 3 of them in final, that has got to hurt
At RG: Djoko is the one who got hurt there. Big time. By Nadal who has kept pummeling him before and after 2011. 6 times in all.
At W: Fed again. Last 2 consecutive years, desperate to win 1 last W. Stopped in final by Djoko both times.
USO: Fed redux. It started well at USO for Fed but since 2010, he hasn't been able to pass the Djoko hurdle (3 losses, 0 win)

Conclusion: and the loser is... Fed of course. Djoko has been in his way for 3 WTF finals, 2 W finals and 3 USO.
You have to understand that despite the numbers of the overall head to head, Djoko is being in Fed's way much more than Nadal. That's because Nadal's (prefered) territory was not the same as Fed's. Which means that Fed was mostly not threatened by Nadal at WTF, lost only 1 match to him at W and avoided him altogether at USO. Very different from Djoko who stomped right on Fed's ground (hard court slams, WTF and W).

 

[jm1980]

Numerically Federer's losses add up to the most, that's uncontestable fact. However the OP hasn't defined 'hurt the most'. Federer has so many records already and is already one of the best of all time. His standing can't go much higher with or without the titles he could have won. OTOH Nadal with the extra 3 slams moves into Federer territory and Murray would be considered so much more highly vs other ATG with an extra 3 slams.

Pretty much this. With or without Novak, Fed would still be hyped up as the GOAT. Same with Nadal; he would still be in more or less the same position he's in now.

Murray however went from probably a decent middle of the pack ATG with 4-5 Slams, a healthy Masters haul, and potentially a couple dozen weeks at #1 to a player that gets compared to Wawrinka and Roddick.

 

[Noelan]

Let's see
At WTF: Fed since Fed was the dominant WTF player when Djoko took over: 3 finals/4 matches since 2012 won over Fed. Very clear-cut change of guard there.
At AO: Murray: 4 losses to Djoko, 3 of them in final, that has got to hurt
At RG: Djoko is the one who got hurt there. Big time. By Nadal who has kept pummeling him before and after 2011. 6 times in all.
At W: Fed again. Last 2 consecutive years, desperate to win 1 last W. Stopped in final by Djoko both times.
USO: Fed redux. It started well at USO for Fed but since 2010, he hasn't been able to pass the Djoko hurdle (3 losses, 0 win)

Conclusion: and the loser is... Fed of course. Djoko has been in his way for 3 WTF finals, 2 W finals and 3 USO.
You have to understand that despite the numbers of the overall head to head, Djoko is being in Fed's way much more than Nadal. That's because Nadal's (prefered) territory was not the same as Fed's. Which means that Fed was mostly not threatened by Nadal at WTF, lost only 1 match to him at W and avoided him altogether at USO. Very different from Djoko who stomped right on Fed's ground (hard court slams, WTF and W).

Minor correction Novak won WTF 2013 against Nadal.

Ok , you edited it