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

[Tony48]

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.

LOL, now you’re just making things up based on nothing. Djokovic never played any of these other players so you cannot say what he wouldn’t have done. But what we DO know is that Federer lost to Kuerten, which means that Federer never should have made the semis to play Djokovic.

And it’s funny how you’re changing the subject to Djokovic when we’re talking about Federer and Kuerten. It just tells me that you’re scrambling to change the subject now that you see that your stupid hypothetical has backfired.

 

[Sunny014]

LOL, now you’re just making things up based on nothing. Djokovic never played any of these other players so you cannot say what he wouldn’t have done. But what we DO know is that Federer lost to Kuerten, which means that Federer never should have made the semis to play Djokovic.

And it’s funny how you’re changing the subject to Djokovic when we’re talking about Federer and Kuerten. It just tells me that you’re scrambling to change the subject now that you see that your stupid hypothetical has backfired.

Nothing you say will ever convince me that Djokovic is better than Federer on clay.
For me Federer is better.
Case Closed.

 

[Tony48]

Nothing you say will ever convince me that Djokovic is better than Federer on clay.
For me Federer is better.
Case Closed.

LOL so let’s recap: Djokovic at his peak lost to Federer not in his peak, which means that that has hypothetical implications about his clay resume.

Federer at his peak lost to Kuerten not in his peak, and you have failed to recognize the hypothetical implications about his clay resume......because you are a hypocrite and failed to recognize the stupidity of your own argument.

Yes, I proved how stupid your argument was and the case is closed. Nothing you said matters now. I don’t have to “convince” you of anything, only show you how stupid your argument is.

 

[Third Serve]

Peak Djokovic destroyed prime Federer even easier the following year in 2012.

2011 was a great and rare clutch win for Fed, but the conditions helped. Damp conditions and lightning fast balls. Djokovic was out of rhythm after a walkover too.

2012 played like a proper clay court again, and Djokovic won easy in straights

Don’t go making excuses for Djokovic’s level when Fed was even more off in 2012. Has to be one of the worst RGs he’s played over the last decade (though I suppose he’s had a lot of bad ones this decade anyway)

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Don’t go making excuses for Djokovic’s level when Fed was even more off in 2012. Has to be one of the worst RGs he’s played over the last decade (though I suppose he’s had a lot of bad ones this decade anyway)

2012 Federer won Madrid masters on clay, reached number 1 and won Wimbledon defeating prime Murray and Djokovic b2b. Most definitely a prime year and one of his best considering the competition.

 

[Sunny014]

Peak Djokovic destroyed prime Federer even easier the following year in 2012.

2011 was a great and rare clutch win for Fed, but the conditions helped. Damp conditions and lightning fast balls. Djokovic was out of rhythm after a walkover too.

2012 played like a proper clay court again, and Djokovic won easy in straights

You have excuses ready and you are pretending as if your champ is better than my champ on clay, but then truth is your champ has allowed Nadal to win the french open a massive 8 times in 11 years from 2011-2021,

So your boat is no better than Federer was, pointless to give excuses for 2011 loss.


Djokovic is comparable to Federer on HCs and I have always accepted that.
He is similar on Clay and below on Grass.

Nothing much to analyze you know.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

You have excuses ready and you are pretending as if your champ is better than my champ on clay, but then truth is your champ has allowed Nadal to win the french open a massive 8 times in 11 years from 2011-2021,

So your boat is no better than Federer was, pointless to give excuses for 2011 loss.


Djokovic is comparable to Federer on HCs and I have always accepted that.
He is similar on Clay and below on Grass.

Nothing much to analyze you know.

RG : edge to Djokovic. More semi finals. Reached final age 33. 1-1 h2h.

Masters: Djokovic. More titles, won all 3 including 5 Rome which is more prestigious

Peak level : Djokovic. Defeated Nadal at RG, has 7 wins over clay god.

Overall Djokovic has edge on clay and HCs. Peak for peak is ahead on slow grass but Fed has the career numbers.

 

[Fiero425]

2012 Federer won Madrid masters on clay, reached number 1 and won Wimbledon defeating prime Murray and Djokovic b2b. Most definitely a prime year and one of his best considering the competition.

Memories are a little short for the ones looking to stay on top of their argument! WTF does one have to do to get kudos? As you said Fed won Wimbledon & got back to #1 in 2012! I can't undestand the narrowmindedness of some who try to underplay that achievement late in his career just to boister than weak argument about being PRIME!

 

[Gazelle]

Djokovic also now has a (slightly!) better record at Roland Garros than Federer, even if we don't count "has beaten Nadal" as a tiebreaker:

Titles: Djokovic 1-1 Federer
Losing Finals: Djokovic 4-4 Federer
Losing Semi-Finals: Djokovic 5-3 Federer
Losing Quarter-Finals: Djokovic 4-4 Federer

Making the Semi-Finals > Not Making the Semi-Finals

So Djokovic has a worse win rate in RG semis? That makes Roger the better RG player.

 

[Third Serve]

2012 Federer won Madrid masters on clay, reached number 1 and won Wimbledon defeating prime Murray and Djokovic b2b. Most definitely a prime year and one of his best considering the competition.

Dude wtf is this argument?

If you can make up excuses for Djokovic being out of rhythm in 2011, I can say the same (and even more than that) for Fed in 2012. Plus, you know, Djokovic had an even better season in 2011 than Fed in 2012 so I can use that "prime year" argument too.

It's still nonsense because a player's level rarely remains consistent across an entire year.

I was just pointing out how hypocritical it is to make up all sorts of excuses for 2011 Djokovic losing to Fed while hailing his 2012 win as some remarkable achievement.

 

[Sunny014]

1. I don’t care when Federer stopped taking clay seriously.

2. 2011 was not Djokovic’s best year on clay. It was 2016, the year he won RG. And also, you said 2011 was his “peak,” not his best year on clay. I see you’re changing your argument because you realize how how stupid the first one was.

And now you’re angry lol. Don’t be mad at me. Be mad at how stupid your argument was and that it backfired on you. Your own argument shows that Federer never would have been better than Djokovic on clay.

I don't care if you don't care/you care.

Either ways, I believe 2011 was Novak's best clay season, he won 3 tournaments on Clay and that was his best year when he actually had a shot vs Nadal due to his win streak over Nadal in both Rome + Madrid.

Federer stopped him because Federer was BETTER.

As simple as that.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Honestly though, I would take peak Ned at the USO over peak Djokovic there. Frankly, it's hard for me to see any US Open version of Djokovic beating 2010 Nadal. Best would be 2011 final Djokovic but the bad serve would probably do him in. If they had played more matches there, however, I feel like Djokovic would eventually gain the H2H advantage. He matches up too well against Ned on HC since 2013.

Nadal matches up very poorly against Djokovic though. Even when he won the lion’s share of their matches in the first half of their careers, they were always hard fought and often came down to fitness. Peak versus peak versus peak I think there would be a bit of rock paper scissors going on. Djokovic winning most of the time against Nadal on HC but losing more often to Federer on faster surfaces. As for Federer vs Nadal we know how it went.

 

[Sunny014]

RG : edge to Djokovic. More semi finals. Reached final age 33. 1-1 h2h.

Masters: Djokovic. More titles, won all 3 including 5 Rome which is more prestigious

Peak level : Djokovic. Defeated Nadal at RG, has 7 wins over clay god.

Overall Djokovic has edge on clay and HCs. Peak for peak is ahead on slow grass but Fed has the career numbers.

Edge nullified thanks to his loss in 2011
Win over Nadal is no argument, because first of all Djoker is 1 yr younger than Nadal while Federer always has been 5 yrs older and we all know how quick Nadal used to move in his the 00s before his knee injury. Plus in 2015 season Nadal was semi injured, even Jack Sock took a set off Nadal before the Novak's match..... Nadal was unfit and that loss is nothing!

Overall Federer and Djkovic both have 1 French Open each and Novak has lost at his peak to an off peak Federer, so without facing Peak Federer this Djokovic has no chance of being called better.

It is at best a stalemate or Federer better,.

 

[helterskelter]

Not true. It's better to make the semis than not to make the semis. So, if two players have the same number of finals and titles, the one who reached more semis has the better record. This is how Olympic medals tables work.

For the same reason, Lendl has a better slam record than either Connors or Agassi, because all have eight titles, but Lendl made 19 finals and the others only made 15. It's better to have an 8-11 record in slam finals than it is to have an 8-7 record, because making the final is better than not making the final.

So Djokovic has a worse win rate in RG semis? That makes Roger the better RG player.

 

[helterskelter]

Edge nullified thanks to his loss in 2011
Win over Nadal is no argument, because first of all Djoker is 1 yr younger than Nadal while Federer always has been 5 yrs older and we all know how quick Nadal used to move in his the 00s before his knee injury. Plus in 2015 season Nadal was semi injured, even Jack Sock took a set off Nadal before the Novak's match..... Nadal was unfit and that loss is nothing!

Overall Federer and Djkovic both have 1 French Open each and Novak has lost at his peak to an off peak Federer, so without facing Peak Federer this Djokovic has no chance of being called better.

It is at best a stalemate or Federer better,.

Yes, when Federer was 24 and Nadal was 19, it is axiomatic that Nadal had the age advantage. Younger is always better. Nadal had the age advantage over Federer as early as 1985.

 

[Tony48]

I don't care if you don't care/you care.

Either ways, I believe 2011 was Novak's best clay season, he won 3 tournaments on Clay and that was his best year when he actually had a shot vs Nadal due to his win streak over Nadal in both Rome + Madrid.

Federer stopped him because Federer was BETTER.

As simple as that.

Doesn’t matter what you “believe”. 2016 was his best year because he won RG. RG is the pinnacle of the clay season and winning that defines your entire clay career, not who you beat or if you won some clay Masters.

So Federer didn’t stop Djokovic during his best year “on clay.” Sorry.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Edge nullified thanks to his loss in 2011
Win over Nadal is no argument, because first of all Djoker is 1 yr younger than Nadal while Federer always has been 5 yrs older and we all know how quick Nadal used to move in his the 00s before his knee injury. Plus in 2015 season Nadal was semi injured, even Jack Sock took a set off Nadal before the Novak's match..... Nadal was unfit and that loss is nothing!

Overall Federer and Djkovic both have 1 French Open each and Novak has lost at his peak to an off peak Federer, so without facing Peak Federer this Djokovic has no chance of being called better.

It is at best a stalemate or Federer better,.

2011 RG was the best ever Fed there, playing in fast conditions. Djokovic got his revenge in 2012 so they are tied there h2h.

Federer got to play the easier Nadal! 05-06 version had no BH, no serve, no tactics just run and hit FHs. Peak Djokovic would destroy this version.

 

[Sunny014]

Yes, when Federer was 24 and Nadal was 19, it is axiomatic that Nadal had the age advantage. Younger is always better. Nadal had the age advantage over Federer as early as 1985.

Yes, 19 yr old Nadal is a clay courter who was moving like lightning.
Against him definitely on clay Federer had a disadvantage at 24 in terms of raw movement, but wouldnt have had if they both were 19.
Plus yes, Nadal was not that good on clay back in 2005, he got better in 06-07 years, not denying.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Nadal is greater than Djokovic at 2 of the 4 slams and Djokovic greater than Nadal at the other two. That's all you need to know.

I won't mention Federer because his stats were accumulated in a very specific era with not much else outside of that very particular time period.

 

[Fiero425]

Nadal is greater than Djokovic at 2 of the 4 slams and Djokovic greater than Nadal at the other two. That's all you need to know.

I won't mention Federer because his stats were accumulated in a very specific era with not much else outside of that very particular time period.

1 extra USO and Rafa assumes greatness over all? Seek some serious help babe! I think other champions would question that logic or you wouldn't be mentioning Rafa at all when it comes to dominating the USO! That's ridiculous in so many ways! He's been fortunate to take the ones he got since he's normally "done" by the FALL; totally spent from his efforts to win all things on "CLAY!" I could go on, but you get the idea!

 

[titoelcolombiano]

1 extra USO and Rafa assumes greatness over all? Seek some serious help babe! I think other champions would question that logic or you wouldn't be mentioning Rafa at all when it comes to dominating the USO! That's ridiculous in so many ways! He's been fortunate to take the ones he got since he's normally "done" by the FALL; totally spent from his efforts to win all things on "CLAY!" I could go on, but you get the idea!

I didn't mention Rafa dominating the US Open - please read my post again.

Rafa has 4 US Open titles to Djokovic's 3 and Rafa leads the US Open H2H 2 - 1 over Djokovic so yeah, based on that, Rafa is the better US Open player. He is also the better Roland Garros player hence my comment about Rafa being better at two of the four slams.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

I didn't mention Rafa dominating the US Open - please read my post again.

Rafa has 4 US Open titles to Djokovic's 3 and Rafa leads the US Open H2H 2 - 1 over Djokovic so yeah, based on that, Rafa is the better US Open player. He is also the better Roland Garros player hence my comment about Rafa being better at two of the four slams.

AO
9 - 1 titles
2 - 0 h2h

RG
13 - 1 titles
7 - 1 h2h

W
5 - 2 titles
2 - 0.5 h2h

USO
4 - 3 titles
2 - 1 h2h


Not all slam difference are equal.

 

[itrium84]

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

Federer's birthday is in August, so he was close to 30 in 2011 as he is 1981 born.

... So, that's 29.
You sound like my niece that says "I'm not 4, I'm almost 5."

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

Yeah, he woulda, coulda and definitely shoulda.
Fed is "old" since 2020, deal with it.

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

2013 is not ancient tennis history, there's a lot of info about it, you should learn and educate yourself.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

AO
9 - 1 titles
2 - 0 h2h

RG
13 - 1 titles
7 - 1 h2h

W
5 - 2 titles
2 - 0.5 h2h

USO
4 - 3 titles
2 - 1 h2h


Not all slam difference are equal.

No, and I didn't say they were. What I did say, is that Nadal is better in two of the four slams and Djokovic is better at two of the four slams - it is a very simple concept to comprehend.

 

[HashDump]

Bump!

 

[Sudacafan]

I am now asking the mods, how can bumps be neutralized, like doing an anti-bump....
Well, it's like with this post I am strengthening the bump, so this is futile.