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

[Mainad]

Deleted post.

 

[Smasher08]

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

Without a doubt Nads. Add those 3 slam finals, and Mr Pick would be the GOAT.

 

[Smasher08]

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.

Fred would have 2-3 more USOs, 2 more SW19s, and 1 more AO.

But the reality is that when you've won the most slams, any additional slams still mean you've won the most slams. You can't get any better than being the best.

Nads, on the other hand would tie Fred, and that's when their H2H would really come into play . . . to say nothing of the fact that all of Nads' finals lost to Djok came off of clay.

 

[Fiero425]

Fred would have 2-3 more USOs, 2 more SW19s, and 1 more AO.

But the reality is that when you've won the most slams, any additional slams still mean you've won the most slams. You can't get any better than being the best.

Nads, on the other hand would tie Fred, and that's when their H2H would really come into play . . . to say nothing of the fact that all of Nads' finals lost to Djok came off of clay.

I was just thinking of how many times Nole stopped Rafa from having a championship as well? How soon we forget 3 majors from '11 Wimbledon to epic 5:53 final in Australia 2012! Without Djokovic, Nadal would have ripped the record-books apart; Masters and majors! Heaven knows Roger hasn't been pulling his weight in that rivalru "Thank you NOLE!" ;-)

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Nadal imo, there looked like nothing was going to stop his 2010 tear going into 2011, until Novak went on his own tear.
Federer had just been usurped for the 2nd time by Nadal, but nobody expected the tables to turn on Nadal (and Fed too) so quickly.
Sure Nadal hit back and solved the Djoker riddle after the 2012 AO, esp in 2013 and up until the 2014 RG final, but unlikely he will again.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

For me Murray,as Rafa and Fed have already achieved so many slams but Murray could have ended with more better career having 4or 5 slams .

 

[ForumMember]

Very good discussion thread. I am surprised that I had not seen this thread till now.

However it is no brainer. In comparison to the hurt that emergence of Djokoivc cuased to Nadal, other two doesn't even come close.

In case of Federer, earlier he was getting defeated by Nadal and then his conqueror became Djokovic. He has always been second best,at best, since Djoko, Nadal and Murray have arrived on the scene.

In case of Murray there has hardly been any difference. If he had started defeating Nadal and Federer even intermittently, I would have agreed that if Djoko wasn't there, he could have sneaked a few.

But in case of Nadal?? Oh Boy, Nadal wud have been sitting on some 20 Grand Slams if Djoko had not happened.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

The bias is excruciating.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The bias is excruciating.

Apparently Murray has prevented Federer from being more successful. Murray.

I like Murray and all, but he's little more than a current day Lleyton Hewitt. Caused Fed a little trouble early on, but now he's not even competitive against him.

Stretch beating Fed isn't surprising either given his age and mileage, but his fans and or Fed detractors don't want a bar of that -- he's simply at his very peak.

 

[metsman]

Very good discussion thread. I am surprised that I had not seen this thread till now.

However it is no brainer. In comparison to the hurt that emergence of Djokoivc cuased to Nadal, other two doesn't even come close.

In case of Federer, earlier he was getting defeated by Nadal and then his conqueror became Djokovic. He has always been second best,at best, since Djoko, Nadal and Murray have arrived on the scene.

In case of Murray there has hardly been any difference. If he had started defeating Nadal and Federer even intermittently, I would have agreed that if Djoko wasn't there, he could have sneaked a few.

But in case of Nadal?? Oh Boy, Nadal wud have been sitting on some 20 Grand Slams if Djoko had not happened.

and what are these 6 majors that djoker stopped Nadal in?

 

[metsman]

Fred would have 2-3 more USOs, 2 more SW19s, and 1 more AO.

But the reality is that when you've won the most slams, any additional slams still mean you've won the most slams. You can't get any better than being the best.

Nads, on the other hand would tie Fred, and that's when their H2H would really come into play . . . to say nothing of the fact that all of Nads' finals lost to Djok came off of clay.

yes but without Djokovic Fed would have at least 22 slams and Nadal would be even farther than he is now....

 

[I am the Greatest!]

yes but without Djokovic Fed would have at least 22 slams and Nadal would be even farther than he is now....

Regardless. Even if Roger's slam count gets further away from Nadal's, his (Roger) status and legacy won't change; it will just improve. Nadal, as we all can perceive, would be closing in to Roger's legacy had Djokovic not improved. So Novak really did a great service to Roger there by dominating Nadal since 2011. Let's not forget that Roger is getting older, while Nadal is at his absolute peak physical form. There's no way Roger would be beating Nadal on slow surfaces in those years.