Djokovic has made 67% of GS Finals in last 11 years

wangs78

Hall of Fame
Djokovic had highest dominance over the period of 11 years...and counting

also incredible is the longest span of 11 years between 1st and 3rd season with 3 winning Grand Slams [Federer only 4 years span; Nadal no span]
It’s a little easier to win 3 in your old age when there isn’t any prime all-time level competition standing in your way. The fact that 37yo Fed pushed Djokovic to 5 sets at Wimbledon says a lot.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Impressive but Federer made 18 out of 19 grand slam finals is beyond belief
That's 5 years of total dominance , while being in his prime and with no real threat on fast courts.

Novak dominated for 11 years and he did it outside his prime with other fellow greats constantly threatening him everywhere.
 

LETitBE

Hall of Fame
That's 5 years of total dominance , while being in his prime and with no real threat on fast courts.

Novak dominated for 11 years and he did it outside his prime with other fellow greats constantly threatening him everywhere.
there are no fast courts
what are you on about
 
Decent era (2011-16): 11 W 7 F 4 SF 1 QF 1 3R (3 of the 6 pre-final losses were to eventual winners)

Mug era (2017-now): 8 W 2 F 1 SF 1 RET 1 DQ over the last 13 slams. Healthy non-disqualified Djokovic lost 3 slams in 5 years lolol.
2018W to 2021W inclusive comprises by far and away his highest density of 8 slam wins, confined to a period 1 year shorter than any other 8-slam span.

EDIT: And that's with 2020W not held and a ridiculous DQ.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Fed did 65% over about 9 year so not that far off from Djokovic. I don't think Djokovic has ever come close to 18 of 19 consecutive finals. That is the most incredible stat of all.
 

Adam Copeland

Professional
Was checking stats of performance in Slams from UTS website and it shows that Nadal trails behind Federer and Djokovic in win% vs top 10 ranked opponents in both decades but cumulatively is ahead?

Win% vs top 10 (01st Jan 2001 till 31st Dec 2010)

Federer Win% = 76.36%
Nadal Win% = 66.67%
Djokovic Win% = 33.33%

Win% vs top 10 (01st Jan 2011 till today)

Djokovic Win% = 78.26%
Nadal Win% = 70.21%
Federer Win% = 53.66%


Win% vs top 10 overall from 1st Jan 2001 till today

Nadal Win% = 69.01%
Djokovic Win% = 67.78%
Federer Win% = 66.67%

 

Hayole

Rookie
Fed did 65% over about 9 year so not that far off from Djokovic. I don't think Djokovic has ever come close to 18 of 19 consecutive finals. That is the most incredible stat of all.
Was checking stats of performance in Slams from UTS website and it shows that Nadal trails behind Federer and Djokovic in win% vs top 10 ranked opponents in both decades but cumulatively is ahead?

Win% vs top 10 (01st Jan 2001 till 31st Dec 2010)

Federer Win% = 76.36%
Nadal Win% = 66.67%
Djokovic Win% = 33.33%

Win% vs top 10 (01st Jan 2011 till today)

Djokovic Win% = 78.26%
Nadal Win% = 70.21%
Federer Win% = 53.66%


Win% vs top 10 overall from 1st Jan 2001 till today

Nadal Win% = 69.01%
Djokovic Win% = 67.78%
Federer Win% = 66.67%

I Mena it makes sense

Nadal is a great slam player
 

Jonesy

Hall of Fame
Was checking stats of performance in Slams from UTS website and it shows that Nadal trails behind Federer and Djokovic in win% vs top 10 ranked opponents in both decades but cumulatively is ahead?

Win% vs top 10 (01st Jan 2001 till 31st Dec 2010)

Federer Win% = 76.36%
Nadal Win% = 66.67%
Djokovic Win% = 33.33%

Win% vs top 10 (01st Jan 2011 till today)

Djokovic Win% = 78.26%
Nadal Win% = 70.21%
Federer Win% = 53.66%


Win% vs top 10 overall from 1st Jan 2001 till today

Nadal Win% = 69.01%
Djokovic Win% = 67.78%
Federer Win% = 66.67%
Nadal Goat, no?
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
I wouldn’t place too much weightage to big 3 achievements post 2016

All 3 have so many extra slams courtesy the weakest period in open era
 

TimHenmanATG

Hall of Fame
The Big 4 have some absolutely insane statistical records.

Yet another reason why the petty squabbling between fanboiz/fangurlz on TTW besmirches the actual sport of tennis.

We are truly privileged to have witnessed men's tennis over the last 15-20 years.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
28/42 of ones played. Since the start of 2011 he has only not been in 14 grand slam Finals. Would this be the highest of such a long period or is someone ahead

I think it's the best over the longest period. 2004 to 2011 (8 years) Fed was in 68-69% of Slam finals - still amazingly impressive, but "only" 8 years.
 

aldeayeah

Legend
Was checking stats of performance in Slams from UTS website and it shows that Nadal trails behind Federer and Djokovic in win% vs top 10 ranked opponents in both decades but cumulatively is ahead?

Win% vs top 10 (01st Jan 2001 till 31st Dec 2010)

Federer Win% = 76.36%
Nadal Win% = 66.67%
Djokovic Win% = 33.33%

Win% vs top 10 (01st Jan 2011 till today)

Djokovic Win% = 78.26%
Nadal Win% = 70.21%
Federer Win% = 53.66%


Win% vs top 10 overall from 1st Jan 2001 till today

Nadal Win% = 69.01%
Djokovic Win% = 67.78%
Federer Win% = 66.67%
I mean Nadal's prime is around the decade change so it's natural that his numbers are diluted between decades. Nothing to see here, officer.
 

Hayole

Rookie
Djoker's completeness is a little overrated, however. Outside the AO, he is .500 in slam finals.
I can't believe how you set yourself up....

Isn't Nadal also .500 outside RG????

Djokovic's completeness is in how well he has done everywhere and not just about finals record

Nasal is a better slam player when he reaches Sf/F stage but overall body of work it's Djokovic for me
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Djoker's completeness is a little overrated, however. Outside the AO, he is .500 in slam finals.
Slam finals records do not show completeness. This is because it punishes a player for being consistent enough to make the final, but not high-level enough to win the final. This would be a better measure of "peakiness" - when a player is among the best in the game, are they a giant among giants or are they just a contender?

A player that wins 100% of his finals but only ever won a single Wimbledon is not more complete than a player that wins 10% of his but makes every final for a decade.

Win% by surface shows you all you need to know on the completeness of someone's game. Novak has 84.2% (highest ever) on hard, 80.5% (4th highest) on clay, and 85.0% on grass (3rd highest). Naturally you can expect those to fall as he keeps playing, but still. For reference Federer is at 83.5% on hard (2nd), outside of top 10 on clay, and 86.9% on grass (1st). Nadal is 91.5% on clay (easily highest ever), 77.8% on hard (9th), and outside of top 10 on grass. That shows completeness of game better.
 

Hayole

Rookie
Slam finals records do not show completeness. A player that wins 100% of his finals but only ever won a single Wimbledon is not more complete than a player that wins 10% of his but makes every final for a decade.

Win% by surface shows you all you need to know on the completeness of someone's game. Novak has 84.2% (highest ever) on hard, 80.5% (4th highest) on clay, and 85.0% on grass (3rd highest). Naturally you can expect those to fall as he keeps playing, but still. For reference Federer is at 83.5% on hard (2nd), outside of top 10 on clay, and 86.9% on grass (1st). Nadal is 91.5% on clay (easily highest ever), 77.8% on hard (9th), and outside of top 10 on grass. That shows completeness of game better.
Hey but surfaces play the same :-D
 

Adam Copeland

Professional
Slam finals records do not show completeness. This is because it punishes a player for being consistent enough to make the final, but not high-level enough to win the final. This would be a better measure of "peakiness" - when a player is among the best in the game, are they a giant among giants or are they just a contender?

A player that wins 100% of his finals but only ever won a single Wimbledon is not more complete than a player that wins 10% of his but makes every final for a decade.

Win% by surface shows you all you need to know on the completeness of someone's game. Novak has 84.2% (highest ever) on hard, 80.5% (4th highest) on clay, and 85.0% on grass (3rd highest). Naturally you can expect those to fall as he keeps playing, but still. For reference Federer is at 83.5% on hard (2nd), outside of top 10 on clay, and 86.9% on grass (1st). Nadal is 91.5% on clay (easily highest ever), 77.8% on hard (9th), and outside of top 10 on grass. That shows completeness of game better.
Big 3 are all equally great but the numbers are skewed because of preferences of surfaces and on how the courts are designed around the world.

Federer's greatest strength is a bit on the fastest surfaces where the ball keeps low and that makes him a suspect on the slowest surfaces where the ball is on the rise, Nadal's strength is on the slowest surfaces where ball keeps high and that makes him a suspect on the faster surfaces where ball keeps low, Novak on the other hand prefers medium to moderately fast paced conditions and that makes his numbers more balanced as he gets a bit of both the worlds.

If there were 2 Grass slams an year or 2 Clay slams an year and having Federer & Nadal peaking at the same time as him then he probably would have ended as the 2nd best in numbers, he wouldn't be 3rd best in either of these scenarios though.

That having said, Novak's mental strength for me is what makes him the GOAT, not his achievements, achievements all the 3 of these titans have.
 

beard

Legend
Was checking stats of performance in Slams from UTS website and it shows that Nadal trails behind Federer and Djokovic in win% vs top 10 ranked opponents in both decades but cumulatively is ahead?

Win% vs top 10 (01st Jan 2001 till 31st Dec 2010)

Federer Win% = 76.36%
Nadal Win% = 66.67%
Djokovic Win% = 33.33%

Win% vs top 10 (01st Jan 2011 till today)

Djokovic Win% = 78.26%
Nadal Win% = 70.21%
Federer Win% = 53.66%


Win% vs top 10 overall from 1st Jan 2001 till today

Nadal Win% = 69.01%
Djokovic Win% = 67.78%
Federer Win% = 66.67%
These numbers are SO WRONG, I can't understand how nobody noticed that. Novak is top 10 master among Big 3 and 2nd best ever, close after Borg...

Wikipedia:
Nadal 178/99 --- 64.25%
Djokovic 229/104 --- 68.77%
Federer 224/123 --- 64.55%

UTS:

Nadal 179/101 --- 63.93%
Djokovic 231/104 --- 68.96%
Federer 225/127 --- 63.92%
 

Adam Copeland

Professional
These numbers are SO WRONG, I can't understand how nobody noticed that. Novak is top 10 master among Big 3 and 2nd best ever, close after Borg...

Wikipedia:
Nadal 178/99 --- 64.25%
Djokovic 229/104 --- 68.77%
Federer 224/123 --- 64.55%

UTS:

Nadal 179/101 --- 63.93%
Djokovic 231/104 --- 68.96%
Federer 225/127 --- 63.92%
Novak is not leading in top 10 stats for SLAMS

Nadal is the leader among the big 3

Overall Laver, Borg and Sampras lead the numbers.
 
Top