Djokovic greater than any other player on 2/3 surfaces?

Greater than anyone else on 2/3 surfaces?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 38.3%
  • No

    Votes: 29 48.3%
  • Tied with Borg on grass

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 3.3%

  • Total voters
    60

Tony48

Legend
Beating an injured Nadal is no tie breaker because he got spanked by Wawrinka the next match. ...
Federer past his peak in 2011 beat in peak Novak at the roland garros and prevented him from meeting nadal in the final ... So thats the real tie breaker .... even if you say novak beat him next year that still won't compensate because federer was past his peak ....
1. There is no tiebreaker because there is no tie. Djokovic won more matches at the French (and will win more), has more semi-final appearances, and has a higher winning percentage.
2. Even if there were a tie, that is an absolutely ridiculous "tiebreaker." Taking one match out of 50 to make a blanket statement about their entire careers on a surface is completely absurd.
 

Sunny014

Professional
1. There is no tiebreaker because there is no tie. Djokovic won more matches at the French (and will win more), has more semi-final appearances, and has a higher winning percentage.
2. Even if there were a tie, that is an absolutely ridiculous "tiebreaker." Taking one match out of 50 to make a blanket statement about their entire careers on a surface is completely absurd.
Why did Djokovic in his best year 2011 lose to a 30 year old Roger Federer whose peak had ended in 09 ?
This certainly is a tie breaker.

If 33 yr old Agassi or 32 yr old Pete or Henman aged 30+ had beaten Federer in 2004 or 05 when Fed was at his peak then it would have raised eyebrows on Federer's peak levels.
Sameway if a 30 yr old Federer beat red hot Novak on Clay in 2011 when he was at his brutal hitting best then it raises eyebrows as to what Federer of 06 would have done to that Novak or any Novak for that matters.

Secondly, like I said, Federer started to skip the French Open, in the last 5 years he has skipped 4 of the french opens and since 2013 he started taking the french lightly because he knew the gap between him and nadal in age and now vs rest of the field makes it a fool's errand to chase, while NOvak even now knows that he is 1 yr younger to Nadal and rest of the field is weak on clay, so he can give it a shot....

So your 6 semis vs 7 semis type stat is useless....
 

Lew II

Legend
Why did Djokovic in his best year 2011 lose to a 30 year old Roger Federer whose peak had ended in 09 ?
This certainly is a tie breaker.

If 33 yr old Agassi or 32 yr old Pete or Henman aged 30+ had beaten Federer in 2004 or 05 when Fed was at his peak then it would have raised eyebrows on Federer's peak levels.
Sameway if a 30 yr old Federer beat red hot Novak on Clay in 2011 when he was at his brutal hitting best then it raises eyebrows as to what Federer of 06 would have done to that Novak or any Novak for that matters.

Secondly, like I said, Federer started to skip the French Open, in the last 5 years he has skipped 4 of the french opens and since 2013 he started taking the french lightly because he knew the gap between him and nadal in age and now vs rest of the field makes it a fool's errand to chase, while NOvak even now knows that he is 1 yr younger to Nadal and rest of the field is weak on clay, so he can give it a shot....

So your 6 semis vs 7 semis type stat is useless....
1) Federer was 29 at 2011 RG.

2) Djokovic won 6 slams out of 11 at the age of 31-33, so Federer was definitely not old at 29.

3) the following year Djokovic beat Federer

4) Djokovic troubled Nadal on clay while Federer got stomped.
 

Sunny014

Professional
1) Federer was 29 at 2011 RG.

2) Djokovic won 6 slams out of 11 at the age of 31-33, so Federer was definitely not old at 29.

3) the following year Djokovic beat Federer

4) Djokovic troubled Nadal on clay while Federer got stomped.
Federer's birthday is in August, so he was close to 30 in 2011 as he is 1981 born.

6 SLams out of 11 vs a group of nobodies, Federer of 2011-2012 would have won 3 slams an year in these scenarios.

Djokovic never troubled Nadal, it was Nadal who molested Djokovic around 5-6 months back..... lets than sink in .... better to say stuffs like djokovic troubled nadal on clay .... it is a joke
 

Sunny014

Professional
@Lew II

Federer will always remain the GOAT because people have seen him go toe to toe with next gen ATGs in their prime while he was past his

Djokvic went toe to toe with nobodies like medvedev, thiem, zverev, sissipas etc etc ....
 

Lew II

Legend
@Lew II

Federer will always remain the GOAT because people have seen him go toe to toe with next gen ATGs in their prime while he was past his

Djokvic went toe to toe with nobodies like medvedev, thiem, zverev, sissipas etc etc ....
Those were not his main rivals.

Djokovic is the player who has the most wins over Nadal (29), Federer (27) and Murray (25).
 

Sunny014

Professional
Those were not his main rivals.

Djokovic is the player who has the most wins over Nadal (29), Federer (27) and Murray (25).
Federer's main rival was not Novak.

In Federer's prime his main rivals from his generation were Safin-Roddick-Hewitt and yes Nadal too since he matured early.

Djokovic is from the 2011 onwards period after Federer's peak was over and prime as also on the verge of being over.
 

Sunny014

Professional
Peaks :

Federer : 2003-2009
Nadal : 2007-2013
Djokovic : 2011-2016

Djokovic in his best years was facing an old Federer throughout his life, so don't get too excited.
 

Lew II

Legend
Peaks :

Federer : 2003-2009
Nadal : 2007-2013
Djokovic : 2011-2016

Djokovic in his best years was facing an old Federer throughout his life, so don't get too excited.
So Nadal and Djokovic have won nearly half (9/20 and 7/18) of their Slams outside their peak? And they're still winning.

That alone should tell you how dumb is that ''peak'' stuff.
 

canta_Brian

Semi-Pro
Djokovic is extremely successful. I’m not so sure that this means he is great. The Borg at Wimbledon argument/comparison is a good example. Borg moved seamlessly from clay to fast grass year after year. That’s a great performance regardless of when he retired.
 

Villain

Professional
Extra semi finals in a weaker era.
Naa..... not enough

Especially when Fed stopped taking the french seriously in the second decade due to Nadal's presence and also to prolong his career ?


Federer at his peak made the finals back to back for many years, all that puts him ahead because there were better clay courters playing in the 00s than in the 2010s.
Ah mythical peak levels and weak eras...very objective of you. There is no argument for Fed being a better clay court player than Novak.
 

lucky13

Rookie
nole vs fed on clay

RG:
SF

nole 5
fed 3
W%
nole 83,15
fed 80,46

masters:
nole 10
fed 6
nole 3/3
fed 1/3 (no MC or rome)
W%
nole 80,69
fed 74,83

W %:
nole 80,14
fed 76,11

h2h vs rafa:
nole 7-18 (28%)
fed 2-14 (12,5%)
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Professional
So Nadal and Djokovic have won nearly half (9/20 and 7/18) of their Slams outside their peak? And they're still winning.

That alone should tell you how dumb is that ''peak'' stuff.
Nadal won 6 slams after 2014
Djokovic won 6 slams after 2016

Yes these were after their peaks ended.

It would be dumb to think Nadal with his limited movement post 2014 has been at his peak. Have you seen how Nadal used to move in 08-09 ? Have you seen how Djokovic used to move/hit in 2011 or 2015 ? Compare that with their 29+ versions and there will be a huge difference.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
So 2011 Djokovic wasn't peak Djokovic, eh? ;)
I just can't think of any other match in tennis history that people give so much value to. Little did Djokovic, or indeed anybody else, realise at the time that losing that 2011 RG semifinal would forever be held against him as if it was the holy grail or something. o_O
 

weakera

Legend
I just can't think of any other match in tennis history that people give so much value to. Little did Djokovic, or indeed anybody else, realise at the time that losing that 2011 RG semifinal would forever be held against him as if it was the holy grail or something. o_O
You have to admit, it was pretty epic

 

Lew II

Legend
No, but I do think Federer is greater than Djokovic on clay. If not for Nadal, Federer has the most all-time RG titles imo, not Djokovic.
But in the real world, where Nadal existed, Djokovic troubled Nadal a lot more than Federer.

Beat him at RG (2015) while Federer didn't.
Pushed him to the 5th set at RG (2013) while Federer didn't.
Beat him in Rome and MonteCarlo (2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016) while Federer didn't.
 

weakera

Legend
But in the real world, where Nadal existed, Djokovic troubled Nadal a lot more than Federer.

Beat him at RG (2015) while Federer didn't.
Pushed him to the 5th set at RG (2013) while Federer didn't.
Beat him in Rome and MonteCarlo (2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016) while Federer didn't.
Now you're making it solely about matchups (Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer), in which case the final conclusion is Federer > Djokovic on clay because Federer defeated ultimate peak Djokovic in 2011. Undefeated 41-match win streak went POOF.
 

Sunny014

Professional
We have seen enough of Federer and Djokovic to know that the only reason why Novak is in a position to break records is because he is 6 years younger to Roger which makes him physically outlast Federer. He doesn't have anything over Federer over to trouble him if they were both of the same age.

Only Nadal has the forehand at his peak to maybe give some problems to Roger, this Novak fellow has nothing.

No matter what his fanatics say, they will never convince anyone that Novak is even equal to Roger, let alone better.

Novak is a league below Roger and Rafa.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
It was also just one match. Even the most ardent Federer fan knows deep down that Djokovic has achieved more on clay than Roger has. I mean there's not a single stat that suggests otherwise.
Djokovic fans really like to bring down Federer on clay and overhype Djokovic. The truth is, Djokovic having a higher peak in RG is just a myth.
 

weakera

Legend
Djokovic fans really like to bring down Federer on clay and overhype Djokovic. The truth is, Djokovic having a higher peak in RG is just a myth.
Definitely. If Nadal didn't exist, Federer would have the most RG titles. He probably even wins RG 2019.
 

Lew II

Legend
Now you're making it solely about matchups (Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer), in which case the final conclusion is Federer > Djokovic on clay because Federer defeated ultimate peak Djokovic in 2011. Undefeated 41-match win streak went POOF.
Djokovic-Federer h2h on clay is 4-4, in Slams 1-1. In masters finals 1-0 Djokovic.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Djokovic fans really like to bring down Federer on clay and overhype Djokovic. The truth is, Djokovic having a higher peak in RG is just a myth.
I really couldn't care less who had the higher peak. It's overall achievements that matter most, not who reached a higher level on one particular day.
 

Sunny014

Professional
Please stop writing that Djokovic "troubled" Nadal on clay.
Nobody in this universe can trouble a fit Nadal on clay.

Nadal at his peak can Bulldoze peak Djokovic, Peak Federer and Peak Bjorn Borg back to back to back on Clay with 1 day gap in between all the matches.

Maybe he can beat Federer and Novak on the same day (in whatever order of play).
 

Lew II

Legend
I just can't think of any other match in tennis history that people give so much value to. Little did Djokovic, or indeed anybody else, realise at the time that losing that 2011 RG semifinal would forever be held against him as if it was the holy grail or something. o_O
Federer vs Djokovic:

1-4 in Slam finals
4-7 in Slam semis
0-2 in YEC finals
3-5 in Masters finals

But somehow 2011 RG is the only match that counts :laughing:
 

weakera

Legend
Please stop writing that Djokovic "troubled" Nadal on clay.
Nobody in this universe can trouble a fit Nadal on clay.

Nadal at his peak can Bulldoze peak Djokovic, Peak Federer and Peak Bjorn Borg back to back to back on Clay with 1 day gap in between all the matches.

Maybe he can beat Federer and Novak on the same day (in whatever order of play).
True. It's a total misrepresentation. They still celebrate coming close in 2013, as if Isner didn't fluke into the same situation. Djokovic is 4-18 vs. Nadal on clay outside of 2015-2016. About as competitive against Nadal on clay as Thiem or Fognini.
 

Lew II

Legend
Please stop writing that Djokovic "troubled" Nadal on clay.
Nobody in this universe can trouble a fit Nadal on clay.

Nadal at his peak can Bulldoze peak Djokovic, Peak Federer and Peak Bjorn Borg back to back to back on Clay with 1 day gap in between all the matches.

Maybe he can beat Federer and Novak on the same day (in whatever order of play).
Djokovic is the only player that:

beat Nadal at RG in straight sets
pushed Nadal to the 5th set past the quarterfinals at RG
beat Nadal in Rome finals (twice)
beat Nadal in MonteCarlo finals

I don't think he was a big problem for Nadal, but he did trouble him more than anyone else did, including Federer.
 

Sunny014

Professional
Djokovic is the only player that:

beat Nadal at RG in straight sets
pushed Nadal to the 5th set past the quarterfinals at RG
beat Nadal in Rome finals (twice)
beat Nadal in MonteCarlo finals

I don't think he was a big problem for Nadal, but he did trouble him more than anyone else did, including Federer.
Federer bageled Nadal on clay, something djokovic can never dream of .....

Case closed.
 

Tony48

Legend
Why did Djokovic in his best year 2011 lose to a 30 year old Roger Federer whose peak had ended in 09 ?
This certainly is a tie breaker.

If 33 yr old Agassi or 32 yr old Pete or Henman aged 30+ had beaten Federer in 2004 or 05 when Fed was at his peak then it would have raised eyebrows on Federer's peak levels.
Sameway if a 30 yr old Federer beat red hot Novak on Clay in 2011 when he was at his brutal hitting best then it raises eyebrows as to what Federer of 06 would have done to that Novak or any Novak for that matters.

Secondly, like I said, Federer started to skip the French Open, in the last 5 years he has skipped 4 of the french opens and since 2013 he started taking the french lightly because he knew the gap between him and nadal in age and now vs rest of the field makes it a fool's errand to chase, while NOvak even now knows that he is 1 yr younger to Nadal and rest of the field is weak on clay, so he can give it a shot....

So your 6 semis vs 7 semis type stat is useless....
I don't care if Federer skipped the French. That's not Djokovic's problem. The tennis world doesn't revolve around him. Federer doesn't get credit for matches he doesn't play.

Again: one upset means nothing and would never count as a "tiebreaker." Federer beating Djokovic doesn't raise any "eyebrows" about anything. We are dealing in the real world, not your hypothetical world. But if you want to play the "eyebrow hypothetical" game: Kuerten (who was far from his peak) beat Federer in the 3rd round of the French in 2004 when Federer was "red hot", the No. 1 player, and won 3 slams....which means that if they met there in their peak, Federer would never make it past the 3rd round of the French, which means that Federer would have never beaten Djokovic at the French in a semi-final.

Have fun with that.
 

Sunny014

Professional
I don't care if Federer skipped the French. That's not Djokovic's problem. The tennis world doesn't revolve around him. Federer doesn't get credit for matches he doesn't play.

Again: one upset means nothing and would never count as a "tiebreaker." Federer beating Djokovic doesn't raise any "eyebrows" about anything. We are dealing in the real world, not your hypothetical world. But if you want to play the "eyebrow hypothetical" game: Kuerten (who was far from his peak) beat Federer in the 3rd round of the French in 2004 when Federer was "red hot", the No. 1 player, and won 3 slams....which means that if they met there in their peak, Federer would never make it past the 3rd round of the French, which means that Federer would have never beaten Djokovic at the French in a semi-final.

Have fun with that.
As if Djokovic can beat peak Kuerten ?

Do you think Kuerten was a joke ?

He is a 3 time winner who would have been a 5 times winner if not for his injuries....
 

Tony48

Legend
As if Djokovic can beat peak Kuerten ?

Do you think Kuerten was a joke ?

He is a 3 time winner who would have been a 5 times winner if not for his injuries....
Kuerten was no where near his prime (just like how you're claiming Federer was in 2011). Federer was the No. 1 player in the world and won 3 slams that year (just like how you're describing Djokovic). So that means that Federer never would have made a semi-final at the RG and never would have beaten Djokovic.

You like to play the hypothetical game. So let's play.
 

BauerAlmeida

Semi-Pro
True. It's a total misrepresentation. They still celebrate coming close in 2013, as if Isner didn't fluke into the same situation. Djokovic is 4-18 vs. Nadal on clay outside of 2015-2016. About as competitive against Nadal on clay as Thiem or Fognini.

Isner wasn't a break up in the fifth. Isner didn't lose a chance to serve for the match because of touching the net.

So for Djokovic you leave out the 2015-2016 matches but for Nadal you don't leave out any match? And for Fognini when considering his record against Nadal LOL
 

Sunny014

Professional
Kuerten was no where near his prime (just like how you're claiming Federer was in 2011). Federer was the No. 1 player in the world and won 3 slams that year (just like how you're describing Djokovic). So that means that Federer never would have made a semi-final at the RG and never would have beaten Djokovic.

You like to play the hypothetical game. So let's play.
Djokovic himself would never reach semis to face anyone in another era, we can play any game and it won't make him better than Federer.
 

PETEhammer

Professional
huh? of course it's a hard court

"hard court" is a broad term of course but that covers hard synthetic surface which it is. also cement. we cant break it down into every brand of man-made type surface lol

I guess clay isnt clay either since it's actually crushed brick and limestone underneath i think
Your post was so funny I forgot to laugh (90s comeback rewind)

I think in general people have always understood that the surface in Australia is pretty different from the traditional Hardcourts in New York, whether it be Rebound Ace, Plexi, or whatever they used this year.
 
Top