Djokovic is closer to Federer than Nadal is

Benjamin Rio

Professional
6 YEC Fed 5 YEC Novak and 0 Nadal.

At the present time Nadal should not be discussed as GOAT. Djokovic is much closer to Fed's achievements and will probably overtake him. Even doing so will he be the absolute great? Not sure. The impact that Fed has had on the game has been immense. 173 wins in 2005 and 2006 for 9 losses 18 GS Finals out of 19 23 consecutive GS semi finals etc etc
 
Nadal is going to win the French Open Joker Fanboys! No Nole slam for you! Then Federer is going to win Wimbledon after that lol. I'll be laughing all the way up Kingsroad!!!
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
The thing is though , when it comes to slams . Nadal's achievements are heavily lopsided.

Clay slam = 25% of all slams yet Nadal has 64% of his 17 slams all on that one slam.

Sorry to beat a dead horse , but i can honestly say as a Fed fan that Nadal has tortured Fed throughout the years & i am disappointed that he doesn't have MC & Rome & a Gold Medal in Singles.

Is it that difficult for Nadal fans to admit the glaring obvious percentage of clay slams/titles in Nadal's resume?
I hear what you are saying and I can certainly agree about Nadal's clay resume, there is nothing to admit, it is what it is 64% of slams on clay and 72% of M1000 titles on clay - we have no disagreement there.

What I am going to say though is what I have pointed out before - Djoker has 66% of his slams on hard and 75% of his M1000 on hard - that is actually worse. Yes, there are two hard court slams but imagine Rafa's tally if there were two clay slams. Laver won the grand slam when three of the four slams were played on grass and no one bats an eyelid or mentions distribution. Also, yes, hard courts are all different but they are still hard courts. Madrid doesn't play like Roland Garros and Wimbledon at the start of Fed's career played differently to what it does now. My point is we are making way too much out of the clay thing without realising that Djoker isn't that much different. It is irrelevant though because a title is a title.

Are Laver and Djokovic's achievements lopsided? If we are going to be consistent, yes.

Can't we just say that Nadal is an absolute god on 1 surface whilst being an ATG on HC (4 slams) & maybe really close to a Tier 2 Great on Grass (2 Wimbledon's , 3 Runner-Ups) ???

Djoker/Fed are both Gods on HC respectively , with Djoker being an ATG on Grass & Fed being The best all time on grass? (accomplishments)

So Really , , both Fed & Djoker have Nadal beat on 2/3 surfaces whilst Nadal beats them both on 1 surface
in terms of overall accomplishments.

It's really this simple

Fed/Djoker on HC & Grass >>>>>>>> Nadal

Nadal on Clay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fed/Djoker

Is it that hard to admit Nadal's clay dominance in his achievements. Whether it be slams or masters , clay represents a significant portion . I really do not understand why Nadal fans always have to try & battle Fed & Djoker fans with the distribution .

It's really not even close .

The only Feather in Nadal's cap is being tied with Djoker @ USO , otherwise in terms of numbers it's

Fed beats Nadal @ AO/Wim/USO

Djoker beats Nadal @ AO/Wimbledon

Nadal beats them both @ RG & absolutely nowhere else . With USO being tied with Djoker @ 3-3 .

Why is it so hard to see that in terms of slam distribution , Nadal is simply far & away behind both Fed & Djoker @ 3/4 of the slams?

Maybe it's hard for me to understand this defence as Fed has always had well rounded records & numbers , but i can clearly admit to where Fed has failed without hiding it. 1/5 RGs doesn't cut it for me as well as missing out on MC & Rome

Should have more than 6 YECs , those lost finals to Djoker really sucked. Maybe it's just me , i can be really honest? Who knows!
I agree with most of what you say here and I am not looking to diminish Fed & Djoker at all, they are two of the best three ever. What I am pointing out though is this:

Rafa wins two grass slams and four hard slams in the time of the grass and a pair of hard court goats. Djoker & Fed combine for two titles and one win on clay over the clay GOAT. It is not as simple as adding titles and saying Rafa didn't win enough at Wimby, AO or USO. He broke through against two of the three best ever on their turf and the favour wasn't returned... and that isn't even close.

Re: the WTF, yes, Rafa has failed there but it is one tournament. He has 6 additional M1000 than Fed for example, there has to be a tipping point where that gets offset.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Nothing will happen, as there is nothing substantial on the other side, except for more trolling (which would also address your first sentence).

As for the rest, you should look at your post count and divide it by the time you have been here. Unlike you, I started posting a lot when I secured what I needed to secure before going into semi-retirement ... at an age when you will bust your derriere, so, enjoy.

:cool:
More trolling from TH - I'm shocked

Assuming someone's financial position based on an online forum, that pretty much sums up the arrogance you display on these boards
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
When Novak reached his peak and was fit and mentally strong enough he won most of their matches. Last 30 matches he has won 21 out of them.

In the last AO final, Nadal was simply outclassed.
No argument about that - Nadal matured young and owned the first half of the rivalry and Djoker matured later and owned the second half. The difference is that Nadal is winning slams now amongst Novak's and Novak wasn't winning slams and M1000 back when they were teens. Nadal's consistency is another astonishing feat. Djoker won't come close to 10 consecutive years of winning at least one slam.

Fed's dominance slow down because he got out of his peak and Novak and especially Nadal play an extreme physical game.
It's hard to define exactly what each of their peak years are but I don't think that Fed could be considered out of his peak at 27. His winning slowed down because two players came along that were his equal and were much better than Fed's generation and started taking titles.

Slowing down the surfaces has favoured Novak Murray (to a lesser extent) and Nadal. Heavy top spin shots would have landed short on quick surfaces allowing attacking to destroy such players. (overpowering them and taking time away). Nadal has never been able to win the YEC. (even Kuerten Corretja were able to win that tournament)

Harmonization of the surfaces has benefited to all players Fed Novak Murray Nadal etc etc. Even in the context of having a similar court being played all year round Nadal has mainly won on clay. (2/3 of his slams and MS 1000) proving his lack of versility compared to Navak and Fed. That's why he has never dominated the tour the way Novak and Fed did in 2004 2005 2006 2011 2015).

We all know that Nadal is vulnerable to early exists especially. 8 matches won at Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament between 2012 and 2017. His injuries are the results of his style of play not bad luck.
Re: early exits in slams, court homogonisation and versatility, we've been over this and we are just repeating ourselves. I don't think we have changed each others minds but I appreciate the chat. ;)
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
No argument about that - Nadal matured young and owned the first half of the rivalry and Djoker matured later and owned the second half. The difference is that Nadal is winning slams now amongst Novak's and Novak wasn't winning slams and M1000 back when they were teens. Nadal's consistency is another astonishing feat. Djoker won't come close to 10 consecutive years of winning at least one slam.



It's hard to define exactly what each of their peak years are but I don't think that Fed could be considered out of his peak at 27. His winning slowed down because two players came along that were his equal and were much better than Fed's generation and started taking titles.



Re: early exits in slams, court homogonisation and versatility, we've been over this and we are just repeating ourselves. I don't think we have changed each others minds but I appreciate the chat. ;)
Nadal won slams earlier in his career because he mastered clay becoming the beast allowing him to win multiple FO MC Roma Madrid Barcelona etc etc. Djokovic quickly matured but faced tough competition on every surfaces Nadal Federer on clay and Federer Roddick Safin Murray etc etc on other surfaces.

There's no doubt that Nadal did slow down Federer in his achievements when he was at his peak on clay. Nadal stopped Fed multiple times at the FO (2005 2006 2007 2008 2011). On other surfaces Nadal didn't make it far enough to face Fed so he was not better than Fed's generation on other surfaces than clay.


Djokovic didn't really beat Fed when he was at his peak at big events. Djokovic only started being a serious threat from the US open 2010.

I think Novak is going to overtake Fed's achievements. Will it make him the GOAT? Not so sure as i don't think he's had Fed's impact on the game.

Nadal and Fed are in a different league. Nadal is king of clay but can't match Fed's dominance on other surfaces 6 AO 8 Wim 5 Us Open 6 YEC
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
I hear what you are saying and I can certainly agree about Nadal's clay resume, there is nothing to admit, it is what it is 64% of slams on clay and 72% of M1000 titles on clay - we have no disagreement there.

What I am going to say though is what I have pointed out before - Djoker has 66% of his slams on hard and 75% of his M1000 on hard - that is actually worse. Yes, there are two hard court slams but imagine Rafa's tally if there were two clay slams. Laver won the grand slam when three of the four slams were played on grass and no one bats an eyelid or mentions distribution. Also, yes, hard courts are all different but they are still hard courts. Madrid doesn't play like Roland Garros and Wimbledon at the start of Fed's career played differently to what it does now. My point is we are making way too much out of the clay thing without realising that Djoker isn't that much different. It is irrelevant though because a title is a title.

Are Laver and Djokovic's achievements lopsided? If we are going to be consistent, yes.



I agree with most of what you say here and I am not looking to diminish Fed & Djoker at all, they are two of the best three ever. What I am pointing out though is this:

Rafa wins two grass slams and four hard slams in the time of the grass and a pair of hard court goats. Djoker & Fed combine for two titles and one win on clay over the clay GOAT. It is not as simple as adding titles and saying Rafa didn't win enough at Wimby, AO or USO. He broke through against two of the three best ever on their turf and the favour wasn't returned... and that isn't even close.

Re: the WTF, yes, Rafa has failed there but it is one tournament. He has 6 additional M1000 than Fed for example, there has to be a tipping point where that gets offset.
The thing that most probably sets Djoker away from Nadal is that 50% of the slams are on HC & 66% of the Masters + the YEC .

So HC comprises of the majority of the tour .

Plus the fact that most of the top player's favorite surface on tour would be HC.

So more tournaments & more depth on HC .

I suppose we can safely say that Fed is the most well rounded with his 8 Wimbledons + 11 HC slams .

& Yes , Rafa has run into the two HC g.o.a.ts + Grass g.o.a.t on his more weaker surfaces vs not really having the same calibre of opponent on his most dominant surface.

Which can almost explain the huge skew in clay dominance vs the rest in of itself come to think of it.

I think a second French open for Djoker would really put him in the conversation vs Fed in terms of slam distribution . 4 Wimblys is already overkill for Djoker is say , but he may need another 1 more USO.

I know that it's been said , but another French Open really won't do all that much for Nadal in my opinion. Can we really relate to the difference between an 11/12/13+ RG champ? It's already a record that won't ever be broken & will immortalize Nadal as the clay god.

Even Fed @ Wimbly is 'only' 1 ahead of Pete . & Djoker @ AO is 'only' 1 more than Fed .

Nadal has almost boxed himself into a corner for being that good @ RG.

The thing that hurts Nadal so much as far as the YEC is concerned is that Fedovic have a combined 11 YECs , alongside this Djoker has the 7-1 lead @ AO & Fed has the 6-1 lead there along with 8-2 @ Wimbly. Which again shows that Djoker & Fed have Nadal really beat from various top end tournaments . AO/Wimbly/YEC vs RG only.

If Djoker wins another Wimbly this year , he'll tie Borg & most likely be an all-time top 4/5 player @ Wimbly also.


I really do wonder as to how many Nadal fans could honestly say that they'd take another RG over any other slam @ this point?
 
Last edited:

Julian Houston

Semi-Pro
Its easier said than done, people are quick to jump when Djokovic won the last 3 slams. But the reality is Nadal's game is harder to penetrate in the early rounds. Djokovic can be beaten by youngsters, some day he will slip again and Fedal is right there. RG is almost a lock always.
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
There's something to this. Rafa is the king of clay but never dominated off clay or back to back years. Roger and Novak are the leaders on grass and HC, and both had multi year dominances.

Roger is of course the GOAT, but Novak is the 2nd greatest OAT.
Soooo you're saying that Djoko is the OAT Fed to the GOAT?
 
They are. Easily .
No, they are not in anyway equal.

Grigor Dimitrov won the 2017 WTF yet no one outside of people on this forum actually cared about that. Zverev won the 2018 WTF yet he did nothing notable in 2019 at any of the Slams.

There is a reason why the slams are the #1 factors by fans and tennis historians in determining who is the best player of all time.

There is a reason why Sampras was ranked the #1 player before the Big Three despite the fact that he never did anything at the French Open.

Federer would gladly give away all of his WTF titles if you could ensure him that he would get at least two or even just one of the Wimbledon finals that he lost to Novak

This is the only place where people try to hype up the WTF as being important as Slams.
 
There is no comparison between slams and anything else. If you were to ask Roger, Rafa, and Djoker if they'd rather have a slam or a YE#1, WTF, not one of them would choose anything over a slam.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
This is the only place where people try to hype up the WTF as being important as Slams.
And conversely, it's the only place where one fan base claims the WTF is an "exo." It's two extremes.

I've never seen anyone here claiming the WTF is "as important" as a slam. It's obviously second to any slam since it awards 1500 points to an undefeated winner. It's significantly above a Masters 1000 win but vastly inferior to any slam.
 

GabeT

Legend
No, they are not in anyway equal.

Grigor Dimitrov won the 2017 WTF yet no one outside of people on this forum actually cared about that. Zverev won the 2018 WTF yet he did nothing notable in 2019 at any of the Slams.

There is a reason why the slams are the #1 factors by fans and tennis historians in determining who is the best player of all time.

There is a reason why Sampras was ranked the #1 player before the Big Three despite the fact that he never did anything at the French Open.

Federer would gladly give away all of his WTF titles if you could ensure him that he would get at least two or even just one of the Wimbledon finals that he lost to Novak

This is the only place where people try to hype up the WTF as being important as Slams.
If slams are all that matter when judging tennis players why don’t we shut down TTW? all we need is to look at the slam wins and that’s it, not need for any further analysis.

needless to say, I don‘t agree with this approach. I think when attempting to compare whole careers you need to consider the WHOLE career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K-H

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Slam is the most important for the players but there are other important criteria that factor in a player's ATG.


List of important criteria by the international panel of journalists, coaches, historians and industry representatives from 6 continents.

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
Slam is the most important for the players but there are other important criteria that factor in a player's ATG.


List of important criteria by the international panel of journalists, coaches, historians and industry representatives from 6 continents.

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)
Sorry, this criterion hasn't been relevant in 25+ years. If it's so important, reel off right now: how many DC's did Sweden (Borg) win? How many DC's did McEnroe, Connors and Lendl win for their nations? Becker and Edberg, Nadal and Djokovic?? Most tennis fans could effortlessly reel off how many majors each of these guys have won. If DC is so important, then reel off the DC titles after the names of these ATG's.
 
D

Deleted member 763691

Guest
Djokovic may get within 1 or 2 slams of Federer's 20, but he'll never reach Rafa's slam total, because Rafa is headed for a lot more than 20 :)
 

Lew II

Legend
Djokovic is certainly closer than Nadal to Federer in terms of dominating the tennis, rather than clay plus something else from time to time.

Most ATP points in a season:

2015 Djokovic - 16,585
2006 Federer - 15,695
2011 Djokovic - 13,630
2007 Federer - 13,330
2013 Nadal - 13,030
2012 Djokovic - 12,920
2010 Nadal - 12,450
2016 Murray - 12,410
2005 Federer - 12,370
2013 Djokovic - 12,260
2008 Nadal - 12,095
2004 Federer - 12,065
2016 Djokovic - 11,780
2014 Djokovic - 11,360

Nadal is the definitive surface specialist, in 100 years everyone will still remember how he dominated clay, but Djokovic is a better tennis player overall IMO.
 
Last edited:

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
So true. Nadal is above them. The first player to be YE #1 3 times in his 30s. An OG in singles and doubles. Only player to win 3 tournaments at least 10 times. Only player to win one slam 12 times.
 

Lew II

Legend
Considering that 3 out of 4 majors are played on fast surfaces and Nadal's injuries, Djokovic should have won many more majors than Rafa already. And he didn't.
But if the majority of tournaments are on fast courts, players will be more specialized in fast courts, therefore the competition there will be tougher. No?
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
But if the majority of tournaments are on fast courts, players will be more specialized in fast courts, therefore the competition there will be tougher. No?
How exactly is the competition tougher? Wawrinka?

Come on, you can troll all day, but do you actually understand the reason Novak is still behind Nadal?

Let me outline it for you and anyone else:

Djokovic is not as good as Nadal at the US Open. Do you seriously want to tell me that Nishikori, broken down Wawrinka and Murray are tough competition? He pretty much got a free ride to the final in 2016 and still couldn't win it so don't even think about playing the "Nadal got easier draws card"...

Djokovic couldn't win majors from the young age Nadal did hence, Djokovic could not dominate the AO as much as Nadal has at RG.

Djokovic got hit with an injury and bad form from half way 2016 through till half way 2018.

Got nothing to do with the supposed "tougher competition on HC"... no?
 

Lew II

Legend
How exactly is the competition tougher? Wawrinka?

Come on, you can troll all day, but do you actually understand the reason Novak is still behind Nadal?

Let me outline it for you and anyone else:

Djokovic is not as good as Nadal at the US Open. Do you seriously want to tell me that Nishikori, broken down Wawrinka and Murray are tough competition? He pretty much got a free ride to the final in 2016 and still couldn't win it so don't even think about playing the "Nadal got easier draws card"...

Djokovic couldn't win majors from the young age Nadal did hence, Djokovic could not dominate the AO as much as Nadal has at RG.

Djokovic got hit with an injury and bad form from half way 2016 through till half way 2018.

Got nothing to do with the supposed "tougher competition on HC"... no?
The more relevant is a surface, the more players will be suited for it and therefore the competition would be higher.

If you can't understand this simple logic I'm sorry for you.
 

StANDAA

Legend
Considering that 3 out of 4 majors are played on fast surfaces and Nadal's injuries, Djokovic should have won many more majors than Rafa already. And he didn't.
the surfaces are so fast I can’t even see the ball most of the time cause it bounces off the court in a light speed
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
The more relevant is a surface, the more players will be suited for it and therefore the competition would be higher.

If you can't understand this simple logic I'm sorry for you.
Absolute garbage, Federer, Wawrinka, Djokovic and Nadal all grew up playing tennis on clay. They're just a few examples, most of the top players in the world did. Europe is full of clay courts.

And you can't handle the fact that Novak couldn't get through Nishikori, Murray or a broken down Wawrinka to win some more US Open titles. Those aren't tough HC competition compared to Novak, Soderling, Wawrinka, Thiem and Federer on clay which Nadal had to go through.
 

Lew II

Legend
Absolute garbage, Federer, Wawrinka, Djokovic and Nadal all grew up playing tennis on clay. They're just a few examples, most of the top players in the world did. Europe is full of clay courts.
You have no proof that players train more on clay.

I have the proof that hardcourts and grass combined are much more relevant than clay in the ATP Tour.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
In order of importance:
1. Slams: Rafa 19-16 Djoker (AO: Djoker 7-1, RG: Rafa 12-1, WIM: Djoker 5-2, USO: Rafa 4-3)
2. The Number 1 Ranking: YE # 1: Rafa 5-5 Djoker / Weeks at # 1: Djoker 275 - 207 Rafa
3. WTF: Djoker 5-0 Rafa
4. M1000: Rafa 34-33 Djoker

As we can see it is very close, Rafa has the slams, Djoker edges the # 1 ranking based on weeks, Djoker has WTF (does one tournament alone get a category for itself? not even individual slams get that) and Rafa has M1000. They each hold the upper hand in two of the four major categories (they even share two slams each where one is dominant in titles over the other) and because it is so close and Rafa is three slams in front it is a no brainer that Rafa is in front of Djoker as it stands right now.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
You have no proof that players train more on clay.

I have the proof that hardcourts and grass combined are much more relevant than clay in the ATP Tour.
No proof? Lol you're so full of it. The players themselves have stated that they grew up playing on clay. Maybe you know better than them don't you genius.
 
Sorry, this criterion hasn't been relevant in 25+ years. If it's so important, reel off right now: how many DC's did Sweden (Borg) win? How many DC's did McEnroe, Connors and Lendl win for their nations? Becker and Edberg, Nadal and Djokovic?? Most tennis fans could effortlessly reel off how many majors each of these guys have won. If DC is so important, then reel off the DC titles after the names of these ATG's.
I agree. It is all about slams now. Everything else is just a tiebreaker, nothing else. Maybe if someone has 10 YE#1s to your 4 or 5, and 1 or 2 fewer slams it might make a difference, but that is it.
 

Belgrad13

Rookie
In order of importance:
1. Slams: Rafa 19-16 Djoker (AO: Djoker 7-1, RG: Rafa 12-1, WIM: Djoker 5-2, USO: Rafa 4-3)
2. The Number 1 Ranking: YE # 1: Rafa 5-5 Djoker / Weeks at # 1: Djoker 275 - 207 Rafa
3. WTF: Djoker 5-0 Rafa
4. M1000: Rafa 34-33 Djoker

As we can see it is very close, Rafa has the slams, Djoker edges the # 1 ranking based on weeks, Djoker has WTF (does one tournament alone get a category for itself? not even individual slams get that) and Rafa has M1000. They each hold the upper hand in two of the four major categories (they even share two slams each where one is dominant in titles over the other) and because it is so close and Rafa is three slams in front it is a no brainer that Rafa is in front of Djoker as it stands right now.
Everything is correct, but the distribution of titles is also important. Djokovic is not a type to whom it is important to win a certain title an infinite number of times. And that's a good thing. Nadal needs Wimbledon again for the absolute proof. The finals are not that important. See who won it since 2016.
 

Belgrad13

Rookie
A third Wimbledon title for Nadal and Djokovic comes under a lot of pressure when it comes to RG.
It is already difficult without the second victory there, which is simply impossible to achieve. Maybe with the roof now. Let's see.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
A third Wimbledon title for Nadal and Djokovic comes under a lot of pressure when it comes to RG.
It is already difficult without the second victory there, which is simply impossible to achieve. Maybe with the roof now. Let's see.
Novak really only has to be concerned about 1 thing when it comes to his rivalry with Nadal; the disparity in the category of FO wins! That's it; Djokovic absolutely dominates in just about every other category! When Nadal can do more than dream of having multiple AO's and at least one WTF, CALL ME! :sneaky:
 

Belgrad13

Rookie
Novak really only has to be concerned about 1 thing when it comes to his rivalry with Nadal; the disparity in the category of FO wins! That's it; Djokovic absolutely dominates in just about every other category! When Nadal can do more than dream of having multiple AO's and at least one WTF, CALL ME! :sneaky:
Yes everything correct. I am concerned with the different surfaces. Winning the French Open is only important because they are played on clay. That's why I think Wimbledon is important to Nadal. More important than the 2nd Australian Open. I also add AO and UO together and there is Novak also in front of Nadal.

The distribution of the titles on different surfaces is crucial.

Slams Hard 10-5 Djoker
Slams Grass 5-2 Djoker
Slams Clay 12-1 Nadal

We need a second Clay Slam Title. In this case it is Roland Garros.
 
Last edited:

Belgrad13

Rookie
The second AO Title is very important for Rafa. But a third Wimbledon Title give him 3 Slams or more on every surface. This is more imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
T

Tiki-Taka

Guest
Indeed winning 13 instead of 12 Roland Garros titles can only do harm... :rolleyes:

As I said once before, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Djokovic was victorious twelve times in Melbourne himself. He hasn't even won 12 hard court Majors in total despite having twice as many opportunities as Nadal has on his favorite surface. As it stands, Djokovic is behind him...

It's rather puzzling how some people find it easy to praise many players' for dominance of their favorite events, but when one brings up Nadal at Roland Garros, easily the finest example of that, then it's suddenly a slightly different tune...
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Everything is correct, but the distribution of titles is also important. Djokovic is not a type to whom it is important to win a certain title an infinite number of times. And that's a good thing. Nadal needs Wimbledon again for the absolute proof. The finals are not that important. See who won it since 2016.
Outside of winning them all (which Rafa has done). Distribution is irrelevant. We don't look back on past champions and care about their slam or surface distribution. Laver won the grand slam when three of the four slams were on grass but this fact in no way diminishes his greatness, Sampras was considered GOAT before Fed despite not winning RG. The argument doesn't stand up.

BTW Rafa's distribution isn't a whole lot different to Djokovic's.

12-4-2-1
7-5-3-1

The only major difference in the numbers is that Rafa dominated his best slam better than Djoker dominated his. Utter dominance on a surface like the world has never seen does not equal failure on the rest.
 
Last edited:

Third Serve

Legend
Outside of winning them all (which Rafa has done). Distribution is irrelevant. We don't look back on past champions and care about their slam or surface distribution. Laver won the grand slam when three of the four slams were on grass but this fact in no way diminishes his greatness, Sampras was considered GOAT before Fed despite not winning RG. The argument doesn't stand up.

BTW Rafa's distribution isn't a whole lot different to Djokovic's.

12-4-3-1
7-5-4-1

The only major difference in the numbers is that Rafa dominated his best slam better than Djoker dominated his. Utter dominance on a surface like the world has never seen does not equal failure on the rest.
Not to nitpick, but I think the numbers are a bit off.

Isn't the distribution:

12 - 4 - 2 - 1
7 - 5 - 3 - 1?
 

Belgrad13

Rookie
Outside of winning them all (which Rafa has done). Distribution is irrelevant. We don't look back on past champions and care about their slam or surface distribution. Laver won the grand slam when three of the four slams were on grass but this fact in no way diminishes his greatness, Sampras was considered GOAT before Fed despite not winning RG. The argument doesn't stand up.

BTW Rafa's distribution isn't a whole lot different to Djokovic's.

12-4-2-1
7-5-3-1

The only major difference in the numbers is that Rafa dominated his best slam better than Djoker dominated his. Utter dominance on a surface like the world has never seen does not equal failure on the rest.
In the draw every year, even I would have won RG once ...
 
Top