Finally the over-rating of Djokovic based on AO SF/F can end now!

I don’t think Djokovic is necessarily overrated at the AO (he’s overrated at Wimbledon), just that Fed is underrated at Wimbledon relative to Djokovic at the AO.

Like it or not, Djokovic is pretty legit at the AO. Some excellent runs in his prime and although they fall on the weaker side of things, his post-prime AO victories hold up better to scrutiny than something like 2019 or 2021 Wimbledon. You can still poke some holes in 2020, 2021, and 2023 AO but not as many as in his Wimbledon runs which were relatively low in level.

Fed's record at Wimbledon is basically similar except his prime was more condensed (and imo higher of quality) and his post-prime a bit less consistent.

You have a few top level runs that stand out as being some of the greatest you'll ever see at those respective Slams:

Fed - 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 W
Djokovic - 2008, 2011, 2016 AO

You have a few other runs that aren't quite as excellent as the above but still demonstrate a standard of tennis that would be hard... though possible... for most all-time great players to match.

Fed - 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012 W
Djokovic - 2012, 2013, 2015, 2019 AO

(The placement of 2019 AO in this tier rather than the one above may be controversial here; I'll address this if someone asks me about it but not in this post. I will say that I could conceivably swap 2008 for 2019 though.)

Then you've got other runs that certainly demonstrate a good standard but are definitely far closer to earth and beatable by several all-time greats in their primes.

Fed - 2001, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019 W
Djokovic - 2014, 2020, 2021, 2023 AO

And then some other runs that are worthy of a footnote but nothing more:

Fed - 2010, 2016, 2018 W
Djokovic - 2007, 2009, 2010, 2024 AO

The rest are just throwaway early round losses that don't really mean anything, plus Wimbledon 2021 where Fed was very very fortunate to reach the QF given his form. Every player has these, except maybe for those who retired too early in their careers to accumulate very many of them.

Fed - 1999, 2000, 2002, 2013, 2021 W
Djokovic - 2005, 2006, 2017, 2018 AO

In general, I prefer Fed because I think he was better in that very top tier (the most important one imo) but aside from that, both players are pretty similar at these respective Slams and any difference in title count is purely due to the quality of opposition faced.
 
Last edited:
Pretty amazing that some Djokovic fans still go on with this theory that hardcourt slams by default have the strongest competition. Somehow I never heard them say that when it comes to Nadal's hardcourt slam titles.

Djokovic faced Murray in 4 AO finals, that says it all. Leave alone facing players like Tsitsipas as main competition. Except for a few years, his AO competition was anything but impressive. And for sure he didn't have it harder than Nadal in RG.
 
Pretty amazing that some Djokovic fans still go on with this theory that hardcourt slams by default have the strongest competition. Somehow I never heard them say that when it comes to Nadal's hardcourt slam titles.

Djokovic faced Murray in 4 AO finals, that says it all. Leave alone facing players like Tsitsipas as main competition. Except for a few years, his AO competition was anything but impressive. And for sure he didn't have it harder than Nadal in RG.
Had it tougher than Rafa at RG for sure.

There are so many players who can play to a really high standard on hard courts compared to a clay court. Plus big servers redlining can always cause a major shock on hardcourt slam on their serve alone whereas this would be unheard of at RG
 
Pretty amazing that some Djokovic fans still go on with this theory that hardcourt slams by default have the strongest competition. Somehow I never heard them say that when it comes to Nadal's hardcourt slam titles.

Djokovic faced Murray in 4 AO finals, that says it all. Leave alone facing players like Tsitsipas as main competition. Except for a few years, his AO competition was anything but impressive. And for sure he didn't have it harder than Nadal in RG.

Funny guy. Don't compare competition on clay vs HC please. It's just complete and utter BS from you to even suggest HC doesn’t have the stronger competition. Absolutely pathetic.
 
Gluten Boy groupie fanboys will ALWAYS excuse every single loss. They are completely allergic to giving the opponent credit for playing better. They want everyone to bow at the feet of their COVID spreading, lines woman hitting with a ball hero...but will NEVER give his main rivals an ounce of the same respect. They will overrate every single thing that he does. He could poop and they'd swear it was the greatest bathroom moment in human history
 
Funny guy. Don't compare competition on clay vs HC please. It's just complete and utter BS from you to even suggest HC doesn’t have the stronger competition. Absolutely pathetic.
Yeah, Murray and especially the GOAT Tsitsipas are surely some hell of a competition. Clearly better than facing prime Federer and Djokovic for many years.
 
In general, I prefer Fed because I think he was better in that very top tier (the most important one imo) but aside from that, both players are pretty similar at these respective Slams and any difference in title count is purely due to the quality of opposition faced.
This. They both had 7 titles at ~31. Djokovic won 3 more against Thiem, Med and Tsitsipas and hence the difference.
 
At least people won't sweep AO 2014 loss under the rug anymore because it wasn't a semi or a final. As we've seen, Djokovic reaching a semi doesn't guarantee he is in tip top form.

Not to mention that he did play much better in that QF than in the 2020 F and 2024 SF.
 
Had it tougher than Rafa at RG for sure.

There are so many players who can play to a really high standard on hard courts compared to a clay court. Plus big servers redlining can always cause a major shock on hardcourt slam on their serve alone whereas this would be unheard of at RG
I don't care how many players "can play on a high level", or some other fantasies. I care about how many do that. As OP mentioned, Djokovic after 2012 didn't face any strong in-form opponent in AO semifinal or final. (and after 2014 in general) Only Thiem 2020 was pretty decent.

Just because Djokovic fans like to overhype Murray and Tsitsipas, that doesn't make them actual strong rivals.
 
Last edited:
At least people won't sweep AO 2014 loss under the rug anymore because it wasn't a semi or a final. As we've seen, Djokovic reaching a semi doesn't guarantee he is in tip top form.

Not to mention that he did play much better in that QF than in the 2020 F and 2024 SF.
The 2013 wawrinka match could also have been a loss if not for the bad call on match point or one prior.
 
This isn't the flex you think it is. This is the only Slam he's won after going 0-2 down in a match. Djokovic did it twice at Wimbledon (2015 & 2022), twice at the USO (2011 & 2023) and at RG 2021 in 2 different matches.
That's because Rafa is not usually down two sets if he is fit enough to win the title. Rafa has won his best slam four times without dropping a set.
 
That's because Rafa is not usually down two sets if he is fit enough to win the title. Rafa has won his best slam four times without dropping a set.
He's been down 0-2 in 25 matches in Slams. He only won 3 of those matches. Djokovic has been down 0-2 in Slams 34 times and won 8 of those matches.

3/25 = 12% of the time Nadal won
8/34 = 23.5% of the time Djokovic won

So Djokovic did twice better from 0-2 down.
 
At least people won't sweep AO 2014 loss under the rug anymore because it wasn't a semi or a final. As we've seen, Djokovic reaching a semi doesn't guarantee he is in tip top form.

Not to mention that he did play much better in that QF than in the 2020 F and 2024 SF.
Yeah, well, if you take a look at who Djokovic faced in the last 4 AO semifinals he won, it will become clear why he still had that record. And in the finals, only 2020 Thiem in the last few years was a decent opponent. (arguably a better one than most versions of Murray in AO finals)
 
hehe

S0POx.gif
:p
KeIYoH.gif

kGuj2x.gif
 
He's been down 0-2 in 25 matches in Slams. He only won 3 of those matches. Djokovic has been down 0-2 in Slams 34 times and won 8 of those matches.

3/25 = 12% of the time Nadal won
8/34 = 23.5% of the time Djokovic won

So Djokovic did twice better from 0-2 down.
Djokovis is 2 sets down more often. When Rafa is 2 seta down, it's because he's not fit.
 
you could argue that novak is more familiar with being down 2 sets. it would both excuse nadal's inferiority and pointing to novak being a worse player for being in that position more often
 
Djokovis is 2 sets down more often. When Rafa is 2 seta down, it's because he's not fit.
There's always an excuse handy. How often did each go 2 sets to love down in Slams?

Nadal - 25/357 = 7%
Djokovic - 34/415 = 8.2%

So only slightly less for Nadal but either way, Djokovic is better at winning those type of matches.
 
He's been down 0-2 in 25 matches in Slams. He only won 3 of those matches. Djokovic has been down 0-2 in Slams 34 times and won 8 of those matches.

3/25 = 12% of the time Nadal won
8/34 = 23.5% of the time Djokovic won

So Djokovic did twice better from 0-2 down.
You are answering the wrong question. It says, "Coming from 2 sets down at the AO is only for the GOAT".
 
I think we can all agree that the big 4 are amazing and deserve the upmost respect. We don't have to argue about who is better they are all the best in their own way. Novak, Rafa, Andy, and Roger are alright with me!
Lol at lumping Murray together with the others.
 
You can ALWAYS overrate someone potentially. Michael Phelps is overrated by some people in some ways, and he is a FAR clearer GOAT in swimming than Djokovic, Federer, Serena, or anyone you can name is in tennis, or practically anyone in their own sport.
It is funny that some people do not seem to get the meaning of the word overrated and think that from a certain level of achievements on you cannot be overrated anymore. You can be the clearest statistical GOAT of all times (eg Gretzky, Karelin) and still be overrated by certain folks.
 
Gluten Boy groupie fanboys will ALWAYS excuse every single loss. They are completely allergic to giving the opponent credit for playing better. They want everyone to bow at the feet of their COVID spreading, lines woman hitting with a ball hero...but will NEVER give his main rivals an ounce of the same respect. They will overrate every single thing that he does. He could poop and they'd swear it was the greatest bathroom moment in human history

Sinner absolutely deserved to win today, I don’t think I’ve seen any Djokovic fans excuse the loss, it happened.

This threads premise of Federer being better at Wimbledon despite having 2 less titles and the hardcourt field being stronger and deeper is ridiculous.
 
He can’t handle the heat. Also lost to istomin during the day. Andy clubbered him at wimbledon during fattige. How i wish the big 3 played in the 80s or 90s. Finals nowadays are always night time or under the roof.

Nishi USO 14 loss was in the heat too.
there are days when he has handled heat well, but djoko definitely has issues on some of the days.
 
No, Djokovic is not overrated at AO, that is absurd.

You are entitled to your opinion about level.
You don't believe a player can be overrated, fine.

To me he's the least impressive out of the big 3 at their respective pet slam
 
I don’t think Djokovic is necessarily overrated at the AO (he’s overrated at Wimbledon), just that Fed is underrated at Wimbledon relative to Djokovic at the AO.

Like it or not, Djokovic is pretty legit at the AO. Some excellent runs in his prime and although they fall on the weaker side of things, his post-prime AO victories hold up better to scrutiny than something like 2019 or 2021 Wimbledon. You can still poke some holes in 2020, 2021, and 2023 AO but not as many as in his Wimbledon runs which were relatively low in level.

Fed's record at Wimbledon is basically similar except his prime was more condensed (and imo higher of quality) and his post-prime a bit less consistent.

You have a few top level runs that stand out as being some of the greatest you'll ever see at those respective Slams:

Fed - 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 W
Djokovic - 2008, 2011, 2016 AO

You have a few other runs that aren't quite as excellent as the above but still demonstrate a standard of tennis that would be hard... though possible... for most all-time great players to match.

Fed - 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012 W
Djokovic - 2012, 2013, 2015, 2019 AO

(The placement of 2019 AO in this tier rather than the one above may be controversial here; I'll address this if someone asks me about it but not in this post. I will say that I could conceivably swap 2008 for 2019 though.)

Then you've got other runs that certainly demonstrate a good standard but are definitely far closer to earth and beatable by several all-time greats in their primes.

Fed - 2001, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019 W
Djokovic - 2014, 2020, 2021, 2023 AO

And then some other runs that are worthy of a footnote but nothing more:

Fed - 2010, 2016, 2018 W
Djokovic - 2007, 2009, 2010, 2024 AO

The rest are just throwaway early round losses that don't really mean anything, plus Wimbledon 2021 where Fed was very very fortunate to reach the QF given his form. Every player has these, except maybe for those who retired too early in their careers to accumulate very many of them.

Fed - 1999, 2000, 2002, 2013, 2021 W
Djokovic - 2005, 2006, 2017, 2018 AO

In general, I prefer Fed because I think he was better in that very top tier (the most important one imo) but aside from that, both players are pretty similar at these respective Slams and any difference in title count is purely due to the quality of opposition faced.

I agree with majority of this.
Only couple of things:

1. I'm talking about over-rated by some over here speaking like he's untouchable in SF/F of AO or that he's close to or similar to nadal at RG

2. AO 13 > AO 16 for djoko IMO. AO 16 djoko in 4R or QF gets blown away by Stan unlike in AO 13 where he survived that onslaught.

AO 13 SF vs ferrer was similar level as vs fed in AO 16 SF. granted AO 16 SF is more impressive as it came against fed.
and Murray was clearly better in AO 13 final 1st 2 sets than in AO 16 final. granted djoko started AO 16 final very fast with a breadstick. but overall matches wise considering competition, its not a significant difference in level for the finals.

So 08,11 and 13 would be in my first tier for Djoko.

3. Another point which I haven't mentioned till now: just taking the pure # of slams for djoko at the AO as some tend to do over-rates him with respect to the other open era ATGs of the past.
 
You don't believe a player can be overrated, fine.

To me he's the least impressive out of the big 3 at their respective pet slam

Good for you.

The world sees him as being pretty freaking impressive on RLA. 10 titles says it all.

And overall 24 titles put him at the top of the pile regardless.
 
dude, did not expect this from you. What an insult to peak nadal at Wimbledon. shame shame. you are hereby stripped of your Nadal fan status!

1. don't forget, djokovic aged 26 lost to wawa in QF of AO.
2. because fed has played at a higher level. Djoko at AO is worse than Fed at Wim level wise but has been far luckier with competition past prime or prime-ish level. Imagine fed of Wim 14, 15, 19 facing djoko AO 20/21/23 level competition.
if djoko of AO 20/21/23 had faced younger versions of himself like fed did in Wim 14/15, he'd have got beaten as well.
stanimal is big 3 level in AO
 
Back
Top