Federer had it the toughest out of the Big 3

[Druss]

In my opinion and I’m sure many would agree, the golden age of tennis was 2007-2012. A period where we saw 3 legends of the sport who were at, or close to their prime.

Nadal captured 9 slams in that period, whilst Federer won 8 and Djokovic 5 slams. Only Murray and Del Potro, with 1 slam apiece, managed to sneak the remaining slams during that time.

The question I ask is…….who had it the toughest between the Big 3?

1) Nadal? Who had it the toughest during his prime years (2006-13), because he had peak Federer in the earlier years and peak Djokovic in the later years?


2) Federer? Who had it the toughest as he was nearing the end of his prime and post prime, since he had to deal with both peak Nadal and peak Djokovic?


3) Djokovic? Who had it the toughest pre prime and early part of his prime, since he had to deal with absolute peak Nadal and prime Federer?


In my opinion it’s Federer who had it the toughest, because at age 29/30 (2010/11), when most players of ATG status are pondering retirement, he battled 2 other greats in their absolute peak.

It’s always easier for a hungry young lion to chase his prey, than for an older lion who has nothing left to prove.

Your thoughts and opinions?

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[NatF]

Your argument is valid, Federer was surely denied many slams by his hungry ATG rivals - he would have definitely competed better with them in best of 5 (specifically Djokovic) if they were at a more similar age which compensates for slams he would have lost when younger. Worth mentioning that Federer has played Djokovic more times in slams than Nadal has as well.

Generally I think all 3 had similar levels of competition, claiming either had vastly superior competition overall as some do is ridiculous IMO.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

Elite rustling from OP

 

[mike danny]

Nadal had to battle both at their peak, so he had it a bit harder. But unlike Fed, he had the advantage of being in his peak/prime for the majority of the time he faced them. When both Nadal and Djokovic were at their peaks, Fed was 30 or near that age. It's much harder for an ageing legend to deal with 2 all time greats at their peaks.

Nadal had it harder, but he had the advantage of being in his prime/peak which made things easier. Federer had it the hardest because he was 30+.

 

[NatF]

Nadal had to battle both at their peak, so he had it a bit harder. But unlike Fed, he had the advantage of being in his peak/prime for the majority of the time he faced them. When both Nadal and Djokovic were at their peaks, Fed was 30 or near that age. It's much harder for an ageing legend to deal with 2 all time greats at their peaks.

Nadal had it harder, but he had the advantage of being in his prime/peak which made things easier. Federer had it the hardest because he was 30+.

Nadal has played 20-30 less top 10 players at the slams compared to Federer/Djokovic. Don't see how he had it harder tbh. The only slam Nadal has faced peak Djokovic more times than Federer is the FO, Federer's got more meetings at Wimbledon, way more at the AO and arguably more at the USO considering 2008 was at least as good as 2013 from Djokovic there.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal has played 20-30 less top 10 players at the slams compared to Federer/Djokovic. Don't see how he had it harder tbh. The only slam Nadal has faced peak Djokovic more times than Federer is the FO, Federer's got more meetings at Wimbledon, way more at the AO and arguably more at the USO considering 2008 was at least as good as 2013 from Djokovic there.

Well, at Wimb for example Nadal had to contend with a better Federer than what Djokovic had.

 

[NatF]

Well, at Wimb for example Nadal had to contend with a better Federer than what Djokovic had.

Yes but the reverse is that both Djokovic and Federer had tougher competition at the FO than Nadal did.

 

[mike danny]

Yes but the reverse is that both Djokovic and Federer had tougher competition at the FO than Nadal did.

Well to be honest, what I never understood was how could Nadal fans say he had it harder than Federer because he had to deal with peak Fed? Fed couldn't have possibly played himself.

 

[NatF]

Well to be honest, what I never understood was how could Nadal fans say he had it harder than Federer because he had to deal with peak Fed? Fed couldn't have possibly played himself.

Nadal was harder at Wimbledon than Federer at the FO anyway, though Nadal did play Federer a couple more times + Djokovic.

Any player that gets to double digit majors is going to have his share of softer and harder draws. 'Lucky' or 'unlucky' draws even out over a long enough career IMO.

 

[InsideOut900]

I actually agree with the premise of the thread. Also can't deny that it is kind of unfair people are mocking Federer for losing to much younger ATGs when their is barely anyone making it that far in slams at an old age. And he would have denied Djokovic/Nadal more by himself if he was younger.

I think there are multiple ways of looking at it.
Nadal didn't have the most brilliant career on HC and as a result,despite having to 'deal' with peak Djokovic and peak Federer on paper,he very rarely meet them at their peak.
Just an example.Meanwhile he faced Fed/Novak like how many times in RG. This made it easier for Nadal and still kept the competition argument on his side and gave birth to the infamous H2H argument.

Most important for me is who sets the standard. Everyone should be compared to the best,not as stand-alone players.
Within the same match-up,like let say Djokovic-Murray or Roddick-Federer,if one of the players(Roddick/Murray) beat the other,than it is considered they had it hard,but the other way around(Fed/Djok beating Roddick/Murray) it is considered something normal and as a result they didn't have to overcome great competition.

 

[metsman]

There's definitely some truth to this logic. It's harder to deal with ATG opponents when you are declining and the physical gap is large. While people go on and on about how Nadal-Djokovic took so many slams away from each other: Nadal got the benefit of facing a quite subpar Djokovic at slams a few times, most notably in the 2013 USO final. Federer never really got that post 2011. Same with Djokovic who got subpar Nadal a couple times in 2011 whereas Fed never got that either. The versions of Nadal/Djokovic that showed up for the 2011 Wimby/USO or 2013 USO matches aren't better and in some cases are worse than several non-Nadalovic opponents Fed faced in his peak. Agassi in 04 USO, Roddick in 04 Wimby, Safin at 05 AO would clearly be better. Hewitt 04 Wimby/05 USO, Nalbandian 04 AO, Gonzo 07 AO, Blake 06 USO, or Roddick 06/07 USO would be similar or a higher level as well as would Agassi in the 05 USO final.

Overall, I think it is clear that Fed has had the most slams taken away out of the three by the other two most likely due solely to the age gap and honestly he also dealt with a whole other generation of players which Nadal and Djokovic really haven't because of the completely crap generation that followed them. They have dealt solely with each other, Fed, and Murray. Fed has dealt with all those guys plus all the guys from his generation as well as Agassi from the previous generation and also had to deal with an up and coming generation consisting of 2 ATG and another very good player in Murray.

If all three peaked at the same time I think Fed is the only guy you could say would have more slams than he does anyways because he would be cleaning up in his later years and would lose very few slams at his peak because of his complete dominance over Wimby/USO.

 

[Red Rick]

Nadal and it's not close. Didn't rise to the top on HC and grass before a strong era and declined beyond recognition when the weak era started. Rafa isn't the player who goes very deep in Slams when his level is off, except at RG, and he's also suffered for that.

 

[mike danny]

There's definitely some truth to this logic. It's harder to deal with ATG opponents when you are declining and the physical gap is large. While people go on and on about how Nadal-Djokovic took so many slams away from each other: Nadal got the benefit of facing a quite subpar Djokovic at slams a few times. Federer never really got that post 2011. Same with Djokovic who got subpar Nadal a couple times in 2011 whereas Fed never got that either. I think it is clear that Fed has had the most slams taken away out of the three by the other two most likely due solely to the age gap.

If all three peaked at the same time I think Fed is the only guy you could say would have more slams than he does anyways because he would be cleaning up in his later years and would lose very few slams at his peak because of his complete dominance over Wimby/USO.

Well here's how Isee things:

If Federer had to deal with prime/peak Djokovic in 2004-2007,instead of 11 slams, he would probably win 7 or 8. So he'd lose 3-4 slams. However he would more than make up for it in later years. He'd probably win the Wimb and AO titles that he lost to Rafa post 2007 and he'd win 4 more slams afterwards. So he would still have 11-12 slams in the end.

 

[Limpinhitter]

In my opinion and I’m sure many would agree, the golden age of tennis was 2007-2012. A period where we saw 3 legends of the sport who were at, or close to their prime.

Nadal captured 9 slams in that period, whilst Federer won 8 and Djokovic 5 slams. Only Murray and Del Potro, with 1 slam apiece, managed to sneak the remaining slams during that time.

The question I ask is…….who had it the toughest between the Big 3?

1) Nadal? Who had it the toughest during his prime years (2006-13), because he had peak Federer in the earlier years and peak Djokovic in the later years?


2) Federer? Who had it the toughest as he was nearing the end of his prime and post prime, since he had to deal with both peak Nadal and peak Djokovic?


3) Djokovic? Who had it the toughest pre prime and early part of his prime, since he had to deal with absolute peak Nadal and prime Federer?


In my opinion it’s Federer who had it the toughest, because at age 29/30 (2010/11), when most players of ATG status are pondering retirement, he battled 2 other greats in their absolute peak.

It’s always easier for a hungry young lion to chase his prey, than for an older lion who has nothing left to prove.

Your thoughts and opinions?

I think there may have been a few ages of tennis that were more golden than 2007-2015. Haha!

 

[mike danny]

I think there may have been a few ages of tennis that were more golden than 2007-2015. Haha!

2007-2012 or 2007-2013 was the golden period. I'm sure there have been others, but this one has just been the most exciting in the 21st century so far.

 

[metsman]

Well here's how Isee things:

If Federer had to deal with prime/peak Djokovic in 2004-2007,instead of 11 slams, he would probably win 7 or 8. So he'd lose 3-4 slams. However he would more than make up for it in later years. He'd probably win the Wimb and AO titles that he lost to Rafa post 2007 and he'd win 4 more slams afterwards. So he would still have 11-12 slams in the end.

Yeah that's fair. However, I edited my post a little and I think this sums it up best.

Fed had to deal with his own generation of guys like Hewitt/Roddick/Safin along with Agassi from the previous generation. He also had to deal with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray. Nadal/Djokovic on the other hand have only had to deal with each other, Federer, and Murray. Because of the complete crap next generation they have gotten no challenge from there. Fed meanwhile had to put down his whole generation which didn't have any ATG sure, but was still decent quality, and also had to deal with two ATG and another very good player who were 5-6 years younger.

 

[metsman]

2007-2012 or 2007-2013 was the golden period. I'm sure there have been others, but this one has just been the most exciting in the 21st century so far.

I would say 03-13.

03-05 were just as strong as many years in the 07-13 period so it makes no sense not to include them and of course if we are including 10 we have to include 06 too for the sake of continuity.

 

[Limpinhitter]

2007-2012 or 2007-2013 was the golden period. I'm sure there have been others, but this one has just been the most exciting in the 21st century so far.

The OP didn't limit his characterization to the 21st Century.

 

[metsman]

The OP didn't limit his characterization to the 21st Century.

I think the true golden era in mens tennis was 78-95. 3 different waves of MULTIPLE ATG which is quite amazing.

 

[Druss]

I would say 03-13.

03-05 were just as strong as many years in the 07-13 period so it makes no sense not to include them and of course if we are including 10 we have to include 06 too for the sake of continuity.

I agree that the golden age could be extended from 2003-13, however it was more 'golden' in 2007-12.

 

[NatF]

I think the true golden era in mens tennis was 78-95. 3 different waves of MULTIPLE ATG which is quite amazing.

Yeah that seems about right to me, that was when tennis was at it's most mainstream - probably the place to call the Golden Era.

 

[mike danny]

In my opinion and I’m sure many would agree, the golden age of tennis in the 21st century was 2007-2012. A period where we saw 3 legends of the sport who were at, or close to their prime.

Nadal captured 9 slams in that period, whilst Federer won 8 and Djokovic 5 slams. Only Murray and Del Potro, with 1 slam apiece, managed to sneak the remaining slams during that time.

The question I ask is…….who had it the toughest between the Big 3?

1) Nadal? Who had it the toughest during his prime years (2006-13), because he had peak Federer in the earlier years and peak Djokovic in the later years?


2) Federer? Who had it the toughest as he was nearing the end of his prime and post prime, since he had to deal with both peak Nadal and peak Djokovic?


3) Djokovic? Who had it the toughest pre prime and early part of his prime, since he had to deal with absolute peak Nadal and prime Federer?


In my opinion it’s Federer who had it the toughest, because at age 29/30 (2010/11), when most players of ATG status are pondering retirement, he battled 2 other greats in their absolute peak.

It’s always easier for a hungry young lion to chase his prey, than for an older lion who has nothing left to prove.

Your thoughts and opinions?

Sorry for the fix, but you can't ignore other periods before the 21st century

 

[mike danny]

Yeah that seems about right to me, that was when tennis was at it's most mainstream - probably the place to call the Golden Era.

As a well known unbiased tennis analyst would say, post 95 tennis witnessed one mug field after another

 

[junior74]

Yeah that's fair. However, I edited my post a little and I think this sums it up best.

Fed had to deal with his own generation of guys like Hewitt/Roddick/Safin along with Agassi from the previous generation. He also had to deal with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray. Nadal/Djokovic on the other hand have only had to deal with each other, Federer, and Murray. Because of the complete crap next generation they have gotten no challenge from there. Fed meanwhile had to put down his whole generation which didn't have any ATG sure, but was still decent quality, and also had to deal with two ATG and another very good player who were 5-6 years younger.

I think it's safe to say Stan Wawrinka has been troublesome these last three years

 

[Druss]

Sorry for the fix, but you can't ignore other periods before the 21st century

In the Open Era, one can not discount the 80's and early 90's, however I would still rate 2007-12 above that period, but only slightly.

 

[Jonas78]

Imo you get your opportunities if you are consistent. Some years you play great, others less great. Some years the competition is tougher, other years easier.

Federer has been more consistent than Rafa/Djoko, thats the key.

 

[ABCD]

This thread reminds me of "1984" and slogans "war is peace", "freedom is slavary" and "ignorance is strength".

 

[Jonas78]

Your argument is valid, Federer was surely denied many slams by his hungry ATG rivals - he would have definitely competed better with them in best of 5 (specifically Djokovic) if they were at a more similar age which compensates for slams he would have lost when younger. Worth mentioning that Federer has played Djokovic more times in slams than Nadal has as well.

Generally I think all 3 had similar levels of competition, claiming either had vastly superior competition overall as some do is ridiculous IMO.

Very true. Some claim Fed was lucky because he didnt play peak big4 in 2004-2007. If Rafa and Djoker were born in 81, Federer would most likely have won more than 17 slams. The ones lost early career he would more than make up for late career.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

Weak era or not, Fed effectively had to deal with three generations not just one. Heck, if you count the Raonic/Wawrinka/Nishikori/Del Potro generation then it's four.

 

[Jonas78]

Weak era or not, Fed effectively had to deal with three generations not just one. Heck, if you count the Raonic/Wawrinka/Nishikori/Del Potro generation then it's 4

Exactly, its called consistency. Rafa is just 30y. If he could play like Fed did in his thirties Rafa would definetly had his opportunities. You cant have just a 4-year HC-peak (2010-2013) and complain about strong competition. Then its your consistency, not the competition, which is the problem.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

This thread reminds me of "1984" and slogans "war is peace", "freedom is slavary" and "ignorance is strength".

That's how I feel about the weak era theorists who claim Federer didn't deserve to win as much as he did.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I think the true golden era in mens tennis was 78-95. 3 different waves of MULTIPLE ATG which is quite amazing.

78-95 is more than an era. It's an eon.

The old pro tour of the 50's was a murderer's row of ATG's: Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzalez, Pancho Segura, Frank Sedgeman, Tony Trabert, Lew Hoad, Ken Rosewall. It doesn't do much for your career winning percentage to be on that tour no matter how great you are/were.

The early open era also saw numerous all time greats competing for the top spot: Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, John Newcombe, Arthur Ashe, Ilie Nastase, Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, Guillermo Vilas.

 

[Todd Hicks]

In my opinion and I’m sure many would agree, the golden age of tennis was 2007-2012. A period where we saw 3 legends of the sport who were at, or close to their prime.

Nadal captured 9 slams in that period, whilst Federer won 8 and Djokovic 5 slams. Only Murray and Del Potro, with 1 slam apiece, managed to sneak the remaining slams during that time.

The question I ask is…….who had it the toughest between the Big 3?

1) Nadal? Who had it the toughest during his prime years (2006-13), because he had peak Federer in the earlier years and peak Djokovic in the later years?


2) Federer? Who had it the toughest as he was nearing the end of his prime and post prime, since he had to deal with both peak Nadal and peak Djokovic?


3) Djokovic? Who had it the toughest pre prime and early part of his prime, since he had to deal with absolute peak Nadal and prime Federer?


In my opinion it’s Federer who had it the toughest, because at age 29/30 (2010/11), when most players of ATG status are pondering retirement, he battled 2 other greats in their absolute peak.

It’s always easier for a hungry young lion to chase his prey, than for an older lion who has nothing left to prove.

Your thoughts and opinions?

When Fed was in his prime, he was dominant and unbeatable against everyone except Nadal after beating him in the 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon finals.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Federer didn't have an exceptional rival from his generation but faced Djokovic and Nadal, two younger all time greats. Djokovic and Nadal have had each other (and an older all time great of course) but haven't had any exceptional younger rival. Of course, all three had some losses that only they can be blamed for, not the difficulty of competition. I find the difficulty of their career paths pretty much the same and their levels of play are also all very high. The main reason for the difference in their current standings is that Federer used pretty much every opportunity during his peak/prime, managing to beat some really in form players along the way. Djokovic has been exceptionally consistent but didn't always overcome some in form opponents (curse you Stan). Nadal has been the most upset prone when not playing his best which got him the good H2H at Majors against his two more consistent rivals but denied him the chance of fighting for some titles.

 

[Tennisanity]

Federer by far had it toughest. The guys Fed dominated during his peak have winning records over Nadal and Djoko. That in itself speaks volumes.

 

[tennisaddict]

I think Djoko had it toughest.

He does not have the caliber /skill of Fed and Nadal and yet won against them , even though he defeated only an old Fed for the most part.

At his best, outside of clay, it didn't matter who was on the other side of the court for Fed. Same was the case for Rafa.

 

[mike danny]

Federer didn't have an exceptional rival from his generation but faced Djokovic and Nadal, two younger all time greats. Djokovic and Nadal have had each other (and an older all time great of course) but haven't had any exceptional younger rival. Of course, all three had some losses that only they can be blamed for, not the difficulty of competition. I find the difficulty of their career paths pretty much the same and their levels of play are also all very high. The main reason for the difference in their current standings is that Federer used pretty much every opportunity during his peak/prime, managing to beat some really in form players along the way. Djokovic has been exceptionally consistent but didn't always overcome some in form opponents (curse you Stan). Nadal has been the most upset prone when not playing his best which got him the good H2H at Majors against his two more consistent rivals but denied him the chance of fighting for some titles.

Very well thought and balanced post

 

[mike danny]

I think Djoko had it toughest.

He does not have the caliber /skill of Fed and Nadal and yet won against them , even though he defeated only an old Fed for the most part.

At his best, outside of clay, it didn't matter who was on the other side of the court for Fed. Same was the case for Rafa.

Federer actually had it the hardest. He is just a poor man's Santoro with better junkballing who had to work more than any other player to win his titles.

 

[Sysyphus]

It’s always easier for a hungry young lion to chase his prey, than for an older lion who has nothing left to prove.

Your thoughts and opinions?

I think this is a point that too often gets overlooked. Younger chasers have a clear advantage in being able to adapt more easily to the older established players than the other way around.

Pete was even unsettled quite a lot by players like Hewitt, Safin and Roddick when he entered the latter stages of his career, even though they were obviously far inferior players to him overall. And it's not like this happened when he was 40 and they were 25 — it started happening when he was, like, 28-29 and they were late teens/entering their twenties.

It's just the natural order of things. Except for now, that is.... Which is partly a credit to Novak and Murray and company, but also partly the all-consuming void which we've hardly seen anything like.

 

[Rafa the King]

Nadal had to battle both at their peak, so he had it a bit harder. But unlike Fed, he had the advantage of being in his peak/prime for the majority of the time he faced them. When both Nadal and Djokovic were at their peaks, Fed was 30 or near that age. It's much harder for an ageing legend to deal with 2 all time greats at their peaks.

Nadal had it harder, but he had the advantage of being in his prime/peak which made things easier. Federer had it the hardest because he was 30+.

On the other hand. If we say from 05-14, Rafa's peak is 07-13, well then he really could have done without the end of Roger's prime/peak and the start of Nole's prime peak. Roger 03-06 is a lot easier, we give 1 or 2 more easy years like 2010 to Rafa and he wins more than he loses if he has to face others outside of his peak. Roger had 2/3 easy years, so did Novak, Rafa had 1...

No doubt Rafa faced the toughest out of all 3.

 

[NatF]

On the other hand. If we say from 05-14, Rafa's peak is 07-13, well then he really could have done without the end of Roger's prime/peak and the start of Nole's prime peak. Roger 03-06 is a lot easier, we give 1 or 2 more easy years like 2010 to Rafa and he wins more than he loses if he has to face others outside of his peak. Roger had 2/3 easy years, so did Novak, Rafa had 1...

No doubt Rafa faced the toughest out of all 3.

Fanboy alert.

 

[Rafa the King]

Fanboy alert.

You're just as much of a fanboy if I am one, eventhough you like to deny it.

 

[NatF]

You're just as much of a fanboy if I am one, eventhough you like to deny it.

Nah mate

In my objective opinion you're at least thrice and a half the fanboy I am.

 

[Sysyphus]

No doubt Rafa's the sneakiest vulture of all time. Majority of success on the surface where his rivals and the majority of the other best players are the worst, check. Sneaks in some cross-surface domination when the rest of the top players are completely slumped and/or injured, including some hilarious draws and facing few top 10 players, check. Only progress to meet rivals when you're in scintillating form, and bow out to mugs when not, check. Sneaky, very sneaky.



So in the end I'm afraid they're all equally MUGgy, sorry, thenk you.

 

[KINGROGER]

Well here's how Isee things:

If Federer had to deal with prime/peak Djokovic in 2004-2007,instead of 11 slams, he would probably win 7 or 8. So he'd lose 3-4 slams. However he would more than make up for it in later years. He'd probably win the Wimb and AO titles that he lost to Rafa post 2007 and he'd win 4 more slams afterwards. So he would still have 11-12 slams in the end.

I don't think prime/peak Djokovic would make much difference to Fed's slam total to be honest. Between 03-07 Fed would still win as many grass/HC slams. In fact he might win another W in 08 and RG at any time, should Djokovic somehow take out Nadal for him. Then Fed wins the final.

And of course 29 years old + Fed with past it Djokovic, washed up Nadal? He cleans up till he's 31 then 32+ wins a couple of W/USO maybe an AO too.

Very true. Some claim Fed was lucky because he didnt play peak big4 in 2004-2007. If Rafa and Djoker were born in 81, Federer would most likely have won more than 17 slams. The ones lost early career he would more than make up for late career.

Yep. Fed is unlucky he ran into peak Nadal and Djokovic when he was declining. Otherwise we'd know Nole as a 3-4 slam guy and Nadal would have even less grass and HC slams.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Sounds like we all agree that the age of ultron is boring

 

[Red Rick]

No doubt Rafa's the sneakiest vulture of all time. Majority of success on the surface where his rivals and the majority of the other best players are the worst, check. Sneaks in some cross-surface domination when the rest of the top players are completely slumped and/or injured, including some hilarious draws and facing few top 10 players, check. Only progresses to meet rivals when you're in scintillating form, and bow out to mugs when not, check. Sneaky, very sneaky.



So in the end I'm afraid they're all equally MUGgy, sorry, thenk you.

You're not saying the final words you're building up to, so I will

mury goat

 

[mike danny]

On the other hand. If we say from 05-14, Rafa's peak is 07-13, well then he really could have done without the end of Roger's prime/peak and the start of Nole's prime peak. Roger 03-06 is a lot easier, we give 1 or 2 more easy years like 2010 to Rafa and he wins more than he loses if he has to face others outside of his peak. Roger had 2/3 easy years, so did Novak, Rafa had 1...

No doubt Rafa faced the toughest out of all 3.

Roger's peak was 2004-2007, not 2003-2006. In 2003 he was peak for just 2 tournaments: Wimb and the YEC.

Every all time great had easy years, otherwise it's extremely difficult to break the 10 slams barrier. But some of them, when they had easier seasons, couldn't properly take advantage of them (example: Sampras in 1996-1999.)

 

[slal1984]

Fed has it the easiest - He was already in top form when nadal and djoka burst onto the seen. Infact Djoka has to beat Federer and Nadal, (Himself..lol). He had to really reach a new level to beat the two of them. He had to push himself the hardest to get better, to find the next level. If not for them, i dont think he would taken tennis to a new level.

Which in my opinion Nadal nor Fed can get to, Murray can!!