Have Nadal and Djokovic had greater competition in slams than Federer?

Have Nadal and Djokovic has greater slam competition than Federer?


  • Total voters
    119

Sunny014

Professional
Normally the guys you grow up with face the same challenges as well as advantages as you do, so if you are more talented you will win.
How many times did Agassi stop Pete from winning Wimbledon or the US open ? How many times could Nadal stop Djokovic from wining the Aus open? How many times could Djokovic stop Nadal from winning the French Open ?

All this is either 0 or 1 time... negligible.
So there is no way that Safin/Roddick could have stopped Federer more than on 1 occasion at max. even if they were a bit more talented.

Main challenge comes from people who are 5-6 years below you.

In this common sense says that Federer has 2 ATGs who were 5-6 years below him and 1 of those ATGs happened to be a teenage prodigy which means he faced him at a high level earlier than required on Clay, that ruined his clay chances too.

In the case of Nadal-Djokvic they have Thiem-Dimitrov below them at 5-6 years younger.

That tells us that Novak had it the easiest.
 

Nole Slam

Legend
Normally the guys you grow up with face the same challenges as well as advantages as you do, so if you are more talented you will win.
How many times did Agassi stop Pete from winning Wimbledon or the US open ? How many times could Nadal stop Djokovic from wining the Aus open? How many times could Djokovic stop Nadal from winning the French Open ?

All this is either 0 or 1 time... negligible.
So there is no way that Safin/Roddick could have stopped Federer more than on 1 occasion at max. even if they were a bit more talented.

Main challenge comes from people who are 5-6 years below you.

In this common sense says that Federer has 2 ATGs who were 5-6 years below him and 1 of those ATGs happened to be a teenage prodigy which means he faced him at a high level earlier than required on Clay, that ruined his clay chances too.

In the case of Nadal-Djokvic they have Thiem-Dimitrov below them at 5-6 years younger.

That tells us that Novak had it the easiest.
I just read the bolded part. Half of Nadal's Slams were weak.
 

Sunny014

Professional
If Daniel Medvedev was `1991/1992 born instead of 1996 then maybe by 2016 we would have seen him rise.

Jokers like Dimitrov/Thiem are why 2016-2020 is such a weak phase.
 

Sunny014

Professional
I just read the bolded part. Half of Nadal's Slams were weak.
Yes Nadal and Novak both r from same gen ... so Nadal's slams themselves are weak outside clay.

He even won the Aus Open at a time when Federer was reaching 28, a bit doubtful as he was slowing down and Novak was yet to reach his peak (1.5 years from his peak) ....

Thats why Nadal won 3 slams in 2010 as it was a transition phase from Federer to Novak.... change of guard slowly...

Had Nole and Federer been of Nadal's age then I think Nadal would not have won any slams outside of French, but this is a bold statement from me, I am sure Nadal fanatics will pounce on me for saying this, but it is true.
 

Sunny014

Professional
1970-1974
- Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Bruguera & Kafelnikov
1975-1979
- Kuerten, Moya, Rios, Blake, Haas, Costa & Gaudio
1980-1984
- Federer, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Ferrero & Nalbandian
1985-1989
- Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga & Nishikori
1990-1994
- Thiem, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Sock, Pablo Carreño Busta

1995-1999
- Kyrgios, Medvedev, Zverev, Stefanos, Shapovalov, Rublev, De Minaur & Berretinni
2000-2004
- Felix, Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz

Generation responsible for weak era in Tennis 2016-2020
 

RS

Legend
1970-1974
- Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Bruguera & Kafelnikov
1975-1979
- Kuerten, Moya, Rios, Blake, Haas, Costa & Gaudio
1980-1984
- Federer, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Ferrero & Nalbandian
1985-1989
- Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga & Nishikori
1990-1994
- Thiem, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Sock, Pablo Carreño Busta

1995-1999
- Kyrgios, Medvedev, Zverev, Stefanos, Shapovalov, Rublev, De Minaur & Berretinni
2000-2004
- Felix, Sinner, Carlos Alcaraz

Generation responsible for weak era in Tennis 2016-2020
They had each other as competition as well.
 

RS

Legend
Who? Djokodal? Please let's not get into that, we've seen the effect of them having each other in the last 5 years.
They have stopped each other winning slams so yes it still counts.

I was including Federer in that too.
 

BGod

Legend
I mean you could say it's subjective but statistically speaking Fed had in essence faced:
Hewitt (former #1, 2 time champ)
Safin (same as above)
Roddick (former #1, 1 slam but 4 finals)
Nadal & Djokovic (ATG 5 & 6 years younger, hitting stride 2008 onwards)
Wawrinka, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic as also rans

With Nadal or Novak you essentially have the following downgrades:
Lesser ATG for the time (Fed 4 slams after 2010 AO)
Less 3 former #1s (still in prime) with Slam titles

So I don't know how you legitimately argue for Rafa/Nole. Even if you're putting Thiem in there he only won a Slam literally by default when guys are 33 & 34 (Fed turned 34 after 2015 Wimbledon).
 

Sunny014

Professional
They had each other as competition as well.
Each other theory doesn't work in realtime, the cream always rises to the top.

Pete always won over Andre on his fav turfs.
Nadal won over Novak on his fav turf clay.
Djokovic also has won over Nadal almost alwats on the Aus.

Federer as soon as he won his 1st slam was automatically great on HCs as we Grass simulataneously, he did not have to improve his HC game like Nadal had to or improve the grass game like Novak had to.

So anyone in Federer's age group would automatically have been crushed, on Grass as well as on faster HCs, on slower HCs maybe like Safin posed a challenge Novak/Rafa could have posed but no chance otherwise.
 

Sunny014

Professional
nd the thing with Roger was in every slam he automatically reached the final at his peak and even outside his peak he used to reach the semis/finals ... nothing below it.


The level has always been high with Federer as soon as he won his 1st slam.

No chance for anyone growing up with him, he would have buried anyone including Novak/Rafa on the faster courts, they pose a challenge because of their age gap, no other reason.
 

Sunny014

Professional
I mean you could say it's subjective but statistically speaking Fed had in essence faced:
Hewitt (former #1, 2 time champ)
Safin (same as above)
Roddick (former #1, 1 slam but 4 finals)
Nadal & Djokovic (ATG 5 & 6 years younger, hitting stride 2008 onwards)
Wawrinka, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic as also rans

With Nadal or Novak you essentially have the following downgrades:
Lesser ATG for the time (Fed 4 slams after 2010 AO)
Less 3 former #1s (still in prime) with Slam titles

So I don't know how you legitimately argue for Rafa/Nole. Even if you're putting Thiem in there he only won a Slam literally by default when guys are 33 & 34 (Fed turned 34 after 2015 Wimbledon).
Well said.

Hewitt/Safin pushed Sampras-Agassi out and were ranked 1, they are worth their weight on Gold when they were aged 20.
Even Roddick was the top young guy on Grass with the best serve back then, Mcenroe and everyone used to praise Roddick as the next big thing along with Roger.

Nobody knew Federer would literally crush them all and make them his bunnies, but he did, so insulting them would be like insulting pete-agassi before them.... the entire 90s era before federer will look weak if we question hewitt/safin/roddick
 

ND-13

Professional
Nadal does not really come into the picture as his totals are largely clay based for the most part where there is no competition for him.

I can understand Fed fans argument that it is better to have weak eras when you are older than when you are at your peak.

At the end of the day it is nitpicking. Both Fed and Djokovic have won against very tough players all through their career.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The competition debate is ridiculous anyway. Because if the biggest crux of the argument is that Nadal beat Djokovic, while Federer beat LOL Roddick, there's not much debate to be had.

In the minds of the delusional, USO 2013 is a strong era win, while Wimb 2004 is a weak era win. So can't really engage in serious debates with these people.
 

Sunny014

Professional
Nadal does not really come into the picture as his totals are largely clay based for the most part where there is no competition for him.

I can understand Fed fans argument that it is better to have weak eras when you are older than when you are at your peak.

At the end of the day it is nitpicking. Both Fed and Djokovic have won against very tough players all through their career.
Federer never got any weak era.
Roddick, Hewitt, Safin were all ranked higher than Federer before Federer won his 1st slam and they eliminated Sampras-Agassi generation too, if they were weak then Sampras would have done to Hewitt what Djokovic does to Thiem and others.....Federer crushed his peers and made them look weak.

Novak on the other hand got a set of youngsters who cannot even beat an old Federer, so clowns like Dimitrov, Raonic, Thiem below Novak only benefit him since he is the person wininng slams here.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Before 2016 you could probably say yes. Now the last five years have closed the gap and, in my opinion, reversed it.
Nadal has had 2010, 2013 USO and 2017-present.

Djokovic has had 2014-present.

People really need to be out of their minds to still cling on to 2003-2007.
 

RS

Legend
Nadal does not really come into the picture as his totals are largely clay based for the most part where there is no competition for him.

I can understand Fed fans argument that it is better to have weak eras when you are older than when you are at your peak.

At the end of the day it is nitpicking. Both Fed and Djokovic have won against very tough players all through their career.
Very objective.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Nadal has had 2010, 2013 USO and 2017-present.

Djokovic has had 2014-present.

People really need to be out of their minds to still cling on to 2003-2007.
You have to be out of your mind to lump in 14-15 with 17-present :-D. People also always forget to mention that Federer should've had looks to win slams in 00-02 but just developed later than Nadovic and of course had the weakest hard/grass generation ever (yes including Lost Gen) as the Gen that proceeded him. No one says that these last few years haven't been weak but the slam count from 17-present is Djokovic-5 Nadal-6 Federer-3. So it's only a 2-3 slam gap in this weaker era. I think it's still safe to say Nadovic have had it harder. The degree to which that's still true is up for debate but I think it's borderline impossible to make a good case for Fed having it tougher.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
I’d say yes because 1985-1989 (Djokodals gen) was stronger than 1980-1984 (Fed’s gen).

Also, in terms of slams won beating a big 3 member en route, Nadal and Djokovic double Fed in this aspect

This isn’t the end all be all in the GOAT debate but isn’t it a consensus that Djokodal have beaten tougher rivals than Fed throughout their careers
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You have to be out of your mind to lump in 14-15 with 17-present :-D.
Not doing that. Just pointing out that Djokovic had it pretty easy in 2014 and 2015 too, even if those 2 years were better than 2016-present.

People also always forget to mention that Federer should've had looks to win slams in 00-02 but just developed later than Nadovic
Only 2002 was a lost year for Federer. In 2001 his draws at Wimb and USO were incredibly difficult and young Djokodal wouldn't have done any better in his place in that scenario.

Djokovic also didn't blossom at 19 and underperformed in 2009 and 2010 when he was 22-23. Fed at those ages won majors, Djokovic didn't.

and of course had the weakest hard/grass generation ever (yes including Lost Gen) as the Gen that proceeded him.
We've been through this. Collectively, the 1975-1979 generation achieved more on HC/grass than the 1989-1995 generation. So, not the weakest ever.

No one says that these last few years haven't been weak but the slam count from 17-present is Djokovic-5 Nadal-6 Federer-3. So it's only a 2-3 slam gap in this weaker era.
Nadal also won slams in 2005-2007, but people don't assign these years to him.

Obviously, Djokodal have won more in the last 5 years since they are a generation younger than Fed. But you also omit how much Fed missed out on in his 30's because of tougher competition than Djokodal.

I think it's still safe to say Nadovic have had it harder. The degree to which that's still true is up for debate but I think it's borderline impossible to make a good case for Fed having it tougher.
It's not safe to say, that's the point. And I also think it's borderline impossible to make a case for Djokodal after what has happened in the last 5 years, not even including their other weaker years.
 

PETEhammer

Professional
I think Fedal, Murray, Wawrinka, Thiem, and Tsitsipas are stronger than Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Baghdatis, but hey blow me away with your truth.
 

ElisRF

Rookie
I think Fedal, Murray, Wawrinka, Thiem, and Tsitsipas are stronger than Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Baghdatis, but hey blow me away with your truth.
Federer faced those guys well so this is just letting Federer your dislike probably because he passed Sampras get to you.
 

PETEhammer

Professional
Federer faced those guys well so this is just letting Federer dislike get to you.
He already won 12 majors by the time Nadal matured off of clay though, and was at 16 by the time Nole entered his prime. Djokodal both had to fight through him (and each other) to get to where they are.
 

ElisRF

Rookie
He already won 12 majors by the time Nadal matured off of clay though, and was at 16 by the time Nole entered his prime. Djokodal both had to fight through him (and each other) to get to where they are.
Djokovic won lots of slams when Federer can be said to have declined as well so it’s a double sword and Nadal many of them on the weakest surface on the other two so it is a double sword.

And of course Wimbledon 2007 doesn’t count as a peak Nadal somehow.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Not doing that. Just pointing out that Djokovic had it pretty easy in 2014 and 2015 too, even if those 2 years were better than 2016-present.


Only 2002 was a lost year for Federer. In 2001 his draws at Wimb and USO were incredibly difficult and young Djokodal wouldn't have done any better in his place in that scenario.

Djokovic also didn't blossom at 19 and underperformed in 2009 and 2010 when he was 22-23. Fed at those ages won majors, Djokovic didn't.


We've been through this. Collectively, the 1975-1979 generation achieved more on HC/grass than the 1989-1995 generation. So, not the weakest ever.


Nadal also won slams in 2005-2007, but people don't assign these years to him.

Obviously, Djokodal have won more in the last 5 years since they are a generation younger than Fed. But you also omit how much Fed missed out on in his 30's because of tougher competition than Djokodal.


It's not safe to say, that's the point. And I also think it's borderline impossible to make a case for Djokodal after what has happened in the last 5 years, not even including their other weaker years.
Djokovic had it easy in 14/15? Really? Wawrinka at AO? Nadal at RG? Tsonga/Cilic/Dimi/Fed at W? USO was easy but he lost. Murray/Wawrinka at AO? Nadal(Bad as he was)/Murray/Wawa at RG? Fed at W/USO? That's easy? I'm sorry but calling that easy is trolling. That's nothing like the last couple years.

There's some truth to this but Nadal especially would feast on that time and add tons of weeks at 1 which he currently lacks.

Achieved more does not equal better. Isn't that the Fed fan motto? Plus Lost Gen is not done achieving things so that's clearly an unfair comparison. Regardless, they are very comparable and no one ever talks about how Fed had an insanely weak older gen that he didn't even have to overthrow because they never even ascended (Guga excluded). It's just insanely hypocritical that like the number one topic Fed fans like to talk about is how **** the younger gens are and never acknowledge how bad transiton gen was. The complaining about Lost/Next Gen is nonstop, over the top, and incredibly annoying. Literally any time one of them plays there's a barrage of Fed fans insulting them and you literally never here about transtion Gen not even from Djokodal fans. The hypocrisy on this is obvious and honestly if you have any shred of honesty in this debate you'd acknowledge it.

Sure people don't assign 05-07 to Nadal but the gap there is 5 slams and 8 for Novak (much more significant) and also Nadal's slams were less weak as he went through Peak Fed to get them. Also I don't consider 07 weak outside the AO anyway. So it's really just two of Nadal's slams both of which he won going through Peak Fed so that's why it's never brought up.

Again the gap across the last four years is just 2-3 slams so it shouldn't be the deciding factor in who has had harder competition.

If you think it's borderline impossible to make the case for Nadovic then surely you must believe there's a case for Federer no? Or is the only possible option that they are like exactly tied.
 
You have to be out of your mind to lump in 14-15 with 17-present :-D. People also always forget to mention that Federer should've had looks to win slams in 00-02 but just developed later than Nadovic and of course had the weakest hard/grass generation ever (yes including Lost Gen) as the Gen that proceeded him. No one says that these last few years haven't been weak but the slam count from 17-present is Djokovic-5 Nadal-6 Federer-3. So it's only a 2-3 slam gap in this weaker era. I think it's still safe to say Nadovic have had it harder. The degree to which that's still true is up for debate but I think it's borderline impossible to make a good case for Fed having it tougher.
You're such an intellectual nutcase, so enigmatic.
 
Top