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

Have Nadal and Djokovic has greater slam competition than Federer?


  • Total voters
    125

ElisRF

Professional
Clearly weaker. Due to age difference Fed has had the toughest of the big 3 among themselves since the other two skipped most of peak Fed but Fed has had to deal with both of their peaks and has always been there (whereas Nadal basically skipped peak Djokovic in 15 and Djokovic wasn't really consistently there for peak 08-09 Nadal). Fed faced the best version of Nadalovic at pretty much every major besides Nadal at USO. Nadal never faced best Fed at AO/USO, Djokovic didn't face best Fed at any major unless you count 07 AO.

On top of that, Fed had to deal with his own generation and Agassi vs Djokodal having to deal with the current crop of complete black holes. Fed also dealt with the Tsonga/Berdych/Murray/Stan group more than Nadal did, not quite as much as Joe did, but old Agassi/Safin/Hewitt/Roddick/Nalbandian/Davydenko is better than that group anyways. Overall, not even close. This post was slightly tongue in cheek because it's a bait thread but it's mostly the honest truth.
I said the same thing about peak versions Federer had to face pretty much. Only I have the gap a bit smaller it terms of overall competition than you.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
I'll add that Federer at 27 was up against much tougher competition than Nadal at 27. Facing 2008 Nadal is tougher than facing 2013 Djokovic. Give 2008 Fed 2013 Djokovic and he wins 2 slams and finishes YE#1.
He doesn't end as No1.

Djoko wins AO, RG, YEC, more Masters and makes the finals at WB and USO. Clear cut no1.

Remember he ended 2008 only 10 points behind Federer.
 
Last edited:
Still better than the Lost Gen and, so far, the Next Gen.

The Next Gen also have huge holes in their games.
I agree. My post wasn't meant as an overall answer to the question - I voted "even" overall.

It was meant as a narrow response to the claim that nobody saw Federer's generation as not on a par with Sampras/Agassi etc. in advance.

I wrote another post in which I said that even the 95/99 generation is questionable so far. For that matter, who knows about 00/04 yet?
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Clearly weaker. Due to age difference Fed has had the toughest of the big 3 among themselves since the other two skipped most of peak Fed but Fed has had to deal with both of their peaks and has always been there (whereas Nadal basically skipped peak Djokovic in 15 and Djokovic wasn't really consistently there for peak 08-09 Nadal). Fed faced the best version of Nadalovic at pretty much every major besides Nadal at USO. Nadal never faced best Fed at AO/USO, Djokovic didn't face best Fed at any major unless you count 07 AO.

On top of that, Fed had to deal with his own generation and Agassi vs Djokodal having to deal with the current crop of complete black holes. Fed also dealt with the Tsonga/Berdych/Murray/Stan group more than Nadal did, not quite as much as Joe did, but old Agassi/Safin/Hewitt/Roddick/Nalbandian/Davydenko is better than that group anyways. I guess Federer never had to deal with Ferrer or Dimitrov that much in slams, maybe that swings it.

Overall, not even close. This post was slightly tongue in cheek because it's a bait thread but it's mostly the honest truth. Federer faced more and varied quality opponents in his career.
Its way easier to face chumps than ATGs when you're trying to build your career. This is so simple and I don't see what the difficulty is here: Federer had to beat Roddick, Hewit, Safin, and ancient Backassi to assert himself, whereas Nadal had to face the same with Federer thrown in, and Nole the same minus Backassi but with Fedal thrown in. Fed got to build confidence that most players never get to experience for months, let alone years off his substandard clowns.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Its way easier to face chumps than ATGs when you're trying to build your career. This is so simple and I don't see what the difficulty is here: Federer had to beat Roddick, Hewit, Safin, and ancient Backassi to assert himself, whereas Nadal had to face the same with Federer thrown in, and Nole the same minus Backassi but with Fedal thrown in. Fed got to build confidence that most players never get to experience for months, let alone years off his substandard clowns.
It can be argued, but it's not prima facie evident. Maybe you'd rather face your toughest opponents when you yourself are at your best and crush their belief instead of letting them build confidence against you when you are over the hill stricken with autoimmune deficiencies, spinal stenosis, etc. Nadal got to build his confidence on clay anyways early in his career, and then broke through off clay against that version of Fed. For Djokovic, yeah he had it tough 07-08 but he still got to build confidence against Fed at 08 AO when Fed was afflicted with all that, and still couldn't really build on it because he didn't have the right mentality and fitness till 2011 anyways. Unless lack of confidence because he lost to Fedal at a couple majors in 08 was the reason he lost to Safin, Roddick, Melzer, Haas, Tsonga, Kohly, Berdych in 7 of the next 9 majors after 08 RG.

Fed faced very tough competition in 04 AO/Wimby/USO, 05 AO/RG to begin his run of dominance so it's not even that good of an argument. He only got weaker competition for a bit when he was already fully entrenched as the game's best but still had to deal with claydal so it was no open season.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
And Federer had it easy in 2004-2005? His paths to his major titles were also as tough if not even tougher than Djokovic's in some respects. You can't have it both ways.


Sure, but he'd still have trouble winning on HC and only Wimb 2002 would be open. And I think Kuerten would be fairly difficult at RG in 2000 and 2001. But yeah, he'd do very well overall.


Obviously, transition gen was bad, but not worse than the Lost Gen on HC/grass, which is the point I was trying to make. So Federer still didn't have a generation as weak as the Lost Gen.

And besides, Federer was on the rise so he would have had an easier time adapting to the Transition Gen than Djokodal being in their 30's adapting to better younger opponents. Still, Agassi, while not from the preceding generation, was more than good enough to give Fed a challenge from a previous gen.


I did acknowledge it.

The thing is, I don't blame the Fed fans. After over a decade of weak era accusations from the Djokodal fans, it's only fair that they dish it back. Par for the course.


Well, Fed's win at AO 2017 also wasn't weak, so it's only really 2 slams for him, not 3. And if people excuse Nadal by choosing particular slams from that era that they view as strong, well, same thing can be done for Fed, but people never do it. All of his slams are thrown in the weak era dumpster by default.


Well, compare how many slams Federer won at 30-34 vs how many Djokodal have won.

You also have to take into account that it's far tougher for Federer at his age to inflate his resume the way Djokodal have. He is at a far bigger age disadvantage than Nadal in 2005-2007 and it's not even close.

Of course, Fed having to win by far the toughest slam out of all 3 of them at age 38 is also ridiculously unfair. Djokodal have won easier slams after easier slams, but Fed had to beat both at 38? I call BS on that.


In my book, they are tied in this department. This ain't 2013 anymore when it made more sense to make a case for them.
Fed had it easier in 04-05 than Novak did in 14-15 but that's an argument for another day.

Regardless of who you think is better between Lost/Transtion Gen on grass/hard you must admit that they are very comparable and picking between them is splitting hairs.

There are benefits and drawbacks for having your rival be younger or older it's not as straightforward as you're making it seem. For example, Djokovic had to climb the mountain of Fedal which led him to try changes to his game that backfired horribly and shot his confidence and slowed his development resulting in crappy years in 09-10. If Djokovic had Fed's situation he would've been the clear best player in the world in his 08 form and could have likely followed a more smooth development track to reach his 2011 form. This is speculation of course but there are certainly drawbacks to having older established rivals versus young rivals.

I agree that there can be strong slams in weak eras but that's a different discussion. Overall, I believe that Fed's had weaker competition particularly in the slams that he won than Djokodal have.

I'm confused what you mean on your last few points. Are you saying 38 vs 33 is worse than like 24 vs 19. Probably so but I'm not sure of the relevancy of that. I'm also confused on the next thing. Are you referring to W 19? He got bad draw luck and got Nadal. It's not BS it happens. For example Fedovic got eachother in the semis like literally every time while Nadal got Murray. Bad luck but it happens.
 

ElisRF

Professional
Fed had it easier in 04-05 than Novak did in 14-15 but that's an argument for another day.

Regardless of who you think is better between Lost/Transtion Gen on grass/hard you must admit that they are very comparable and picking between them is splitting hairs.

There are benefits and drawbacks for having your rival be younger or older it's not as straightforward as you're making it seem. For example, Djokovic had to climb the mountain of Fedal which led him to try changes to his game that backfired horribly and shot his confidence and slowed his development resulting in crappy years in 09-10. If Djokovic had Fed's situation he would've been the clear best player in the world in his 08 form and could have likely followed a more smooth development track to reach his 2011 form. This is speculation of course but there are certainly drawbacks to having older established rivals versus young rivals.

I agree that there can be strong slams in weak eras but that's a different discussion. Overall, I believe that Fed's had weaker competition particularly in the slams that he won than Djokodal have.

I'm confused what you mean on your last few points. Are you saying 38 vs 33 is worse than like 24 vs 19. Probably so but I'm not sure of the relevancy of that. I'm also confused on the next thing. Are you referring to W 19? He got bad draw luck and got Nadal. It's not BS it happens. For example Fedovic got eachother in the semis like literally every time while Nadal got Murray. Bad luck but it happens.
What makes you say Djokovic had it harder in 14-15 then Federer had in 04-05?
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Another argument that isn't made:

Fed has faced every version of Djokodal that exists, while Djokovic hasn't faced 2004-2006 Fed.

So how is it established that Djokodal have had it the toughest exactly? :unsure:
This isn't really a new argument. It's really just another way of saying Fed is older than Djokovic. The benefits of that (having an era without prime Djokodal to **** on) have outweighed the drawbacks (having to face prime Djokodal at an older age) in my opinion.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Anyway, Federer had the meaningfully tougher competition because he lost the most close matches to strong comp, while winning the most dominant matches vs weaker comp (other than RGdal of course). If his competition was more level he could stand to win a lot more, as his best competition would be worse allowing him to win instead of losing closely, and his worst competition, while improved, would still not be good enough to defeat him. It doesn't matter if you swap 2006 USO Roddick and 2015 USO Federer, 2006 USO Federer beats either and so does 2015 USO Djokovic. It does matter if you swap 2008 WB Nadal and any older Fedal version Djokovic faced at WB.
This is an incredibly unfair cherrypicked argument. I can just as easily say it does matter if you swap AO 12 Nadal and AO 17 Nadal or whatever. If you think 08 W Nadal is beating Peak W Djok though you're tripping. That only works for old Djok.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
This is the Fed fan argument that appeals to me the most and it's rarely made. Instead it's the constant eye test says inferior players that Fed faced are way better than the superior players that Djokodal faced nonsense. I'm happy you took this route instead because I think you can make a strong case for it.
This is an incredibly unfair cherrypicked argument. I can just as easily say it does matter if you swap AO 12 Nadal and AO 17 Nadal or whatever. If you think 08 W Nadal is beating Peak W Djok though you're tripping. That only works for old Djok.
It’s the same post.
 

ElisRF

Professional
It can be argued, but it's not prima facie evident. Maybe you'd rather face your toughest opponents when you yourself are at your best and crush their belief instead of letting them build confidence against you when you are over the hill stricken with autoimmune deficiencies, spinal stenosis, etc. Nadal got to build his confidence on clay anyways early in his career, and then broke through off clay against that version of Fed. For Djokovic, yeah he had it tough 07-08 but he still got to build confidence against Fed at 08 AO when Fed was afflicted with all that, and still couldn't really build on it because he didn't have the right mentality and fitness till 2011 anyways. Unless lack of confidence because he lost to Fedal at a couple majors in 08 was the reason he lost to Safin, Roddick, Melzer, Haas, Tsonga, Kohly, Berdych in 7 of the next 9 majors after 08 RG.

Fed faced very tough competition in 04 AO/Wimby/USO, 05 AO/RG to begin his run of dominance so it's not even that good of an argument. He only got weaker competition for a bit when he was already fully entrenched as the game's best but still had to deal with claydal so it was no open season.
USO 04 was not very tough overall but Agassi in that form alone saves it. USO 05 was a good draw as well with both Hewitt and Agassi B2B in-form.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
I'm aware. The second part was unfair the first part was good. I liked the general argument but the specific example he used was unfair. I bolded the part that I had a problem with. Not that hard to understand.
Just thought it was funny how divided you are about it
 
You think peakdal is beating 11/14 Djok. Maybe in level but with the matchup I seriously doubt it. Even 07 W Djok took a set on Nadal at arguably his highest level W. The matchup with Fed makes Grassdal look better than he is imo.
roflmao viewpoint. 2011vic dropped a set to tomic the qualifier ecksdee.
2014vic made a five-set final out of a possible straight-set win, this lack of clutch shall cost him vs peakdal. don't forget almost going five with dimidroll too, please don't phantasize about droll not being roasted by *peak*dal ho. 2011vic perhaps even, toff to say as the final was a reversal rollercoaster after the first set, and a big part of it was mental since rafi's balls died after four straight losses, which ain't gonna happen in 08 since no version of djoel is owning 08dal on clay like he did 11dal.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
roflmao viewpoint. 2011vic dropped a set to tomic the qualifier ecksdee.
2014vic made a five-set final out of a possible straight-set win, this lack of clutch shall cost him vs peakdal. don't forget almost going five with dimidroll too, please don't phantasize about droll not being roasted by *peak*dal ho. 2011vic perhaps even, toff to say as the final was a reversal rollercoaster after the first set, and a big part of it was mental since rafi's balls died after four straight losses, which ain't gonna happen in 08 since no version of djoel is owning 08dal on clay like he did 11dal.
I think you're underestimating just how much of an impact matchup will have in this case. Rafa's serve that worked so well against Fed will do jack **** against Djoko and of course the massive difference in CC FH-BH rallies. 2014vic was incredibly unclutch in the final but his base level was quite good. I think you're underestimating Dimi in that match he was actually quite good. Winning in 4 was a good result.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
This isn't really a new argument. It's really just another way of saying Fed is older than Djokovic. The benefits of that (having an era without prime Djokodal to **** on) have outweighed the drawbacks (having to face prime Djokodal at an older age) in my opinion.
Not at all. Because this way people have begun to asterisk his accomplishments because of his records against Djokodal.

There would have been a much bigger benefit to have them in his prime, lose a few, but make up for what he lost later on. This way, his records against them would have also been better (note: I said better, not dominant or even a winning record).
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Fed had it easier in 04-05 than Novak did in 14-15 but that's an argument for another day.
Don't see it. Has as much or even more of a difficult path for most of his major titles like Djokovic did. That's bias on your part. 2004-2005 Federer dominates 2014-2015 with little issues.

Regardless of who you think is better between Lost/Transtion Gen on grass/hard you must admit that they are very comparable and picking between them is splitting hairs.
Sure.

There are benefits and drawbacks for having your rival be younger or older it's not as straightforward as you're making it seem. For example, Djokovic had to climb the mountain of Fedal which led him to try changes to his game that backfired horribly and shot his confidence and slowed his development resulting in crappy years in 09-10. If Djokovic had Fed's situation he would've been the clear best player in the world in his 08 form and could have likely followed a more smooth development track to reach his 2011 form. This is speculation of course but there are certainly drawbacks to having older established rivals versus young rivals.
Sure. Just putting it out there that you're blaming Fed for not blossoming early, but Djokovic himself didn't blossom at 19 and had his own struggles in what were supposed to be prime years for him.

I agree that there can be strong slams in weak eras but that's a different discussion. Overall, I believe that Fed's had weaker competition particularly in the slams that he won than Djokodal have.
It depends on which slams. Nadal's 2010 slams, his 2013 USO and his 2017-present slams are not tougher than Federer's in 2003-2007. That's a lot of slams. As for Djokovic, there's no evidence that his post 2013 slams were tougher other than you saying so. So not much to go off.

I mean, if you're part of the crowd that thinks 2013 USO > 2004 Wimb because of LOL Roddick, then there's not much debate to be had.

I'm also confused on the next thing. Are you referring to W 19? He got bad draw luck and got Nadal. It's not BS it happens. For example Fedovic got eachother in the semis like literally every time while Nadal got Murray. Bad luck but it happens.
It was BS bad luck. Looking at Djokodal's slams in 2019, Federer at 38 getting the toughest slam to win was incredibly BS. How is he going to keep inflating his wins with draws like that while Djokodal don't have to pull a feat anywhere near as difficult as that?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I agree. My post wasn't meant as an overall answer to the question - I voted "even" overall.

It was meant as a narrow response to the claim that nobody saw Federer's generation as not on a par with Sampras/Agassi etc. in advance.

I wrote another post in which I said that even the 95/99 generation is questionable so far. For that matter, who knows about 00/04 yet?
From what we've seen from the 95-99 gen, Not a single one of them so far has displayed ATG talent.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
Well, 2008 Nadal doesn't beat Federer either without the crushing 2008 RG loss.
It felt like Nadal had a win in making at Wimbledon after 2006 and 2007, honestly.

2007 Fed scraped by on clutchness in the 1st and pure level in the 5th. Granted he was also the better player in the 3rd.

2008 Fed lost that edge as another year went by and 2008 Nadal was better than ever on grass.

You could be right, but I could also be right that Nadal was bound to win, irrespective of the RG result. It just felt like natural progression to me (or regression in Fed's case :unsure:).
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Not at all. Because this way people have begun to asterisk his accomplishments because of his records against Djokodal.

There would have been a much bigger benefit to have them in his prime, lose a few, but make up for what he lost later on. This way, his records against them would have also been better (note: I said better, not dominant or even a winning record).
Possibly in the court of public opinion but as far as slam total weeks total etc. I think it was better for him the way it went.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It felt like Nadal had a win in making at Wimbledon after 2006 and 2007, honestly.

2007 Fed scraped by on clutchness in the 1st and pure level in the 5th. Granted he was also the better player in the 3rd.

2008 Fed lost that edge as another year went by and 2008 Nadal was better than ever on grass.

You could be right, but I could also be right that Nadal was bound to win, irrespective of the RG result. It just felt like natural progression to me (or regression in Fed's case :unsure:).
Perhaps, but without the RG loss, Fed doesn't have that bad start in the first 2 sets.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Possibly in the court of public opinion but as far as slam total weeks total etc. I think it was better for him the way it went.
We'll agree to disagree. I think it did hurt him and it would have been better to have them from the start. Would have toughened him out mentally.
 

FedeRadi

Rookie


Yes, Fed had it easier.
And this doesn't take even account that beating #2 or #3 Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, 2006 Nadal(off clay), 2007 Djokovic is no where near beating #2 or #3 prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, prime or just post prime Federer or even prime Murray.
 
From what we've seen from the 95-99 gen, Not a single one of them so far has displayed ATG talent.
I think that's most likely true, although it could depend a little on how high you set the bar for qualification as an all-time great.

Like I said, I'm not 100% sure that Auger-Aliassime or possibly even Sinner has displayed that talent, either. Perhaps they have. There's still time for them to improve.

I wonder whether Carlos Alcaraz will pass them all by and be the next big thing. Tough for him that his most likely breakthrough is on the surface where there's the biggest obstacle.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Don't see it. Has as much or even more of a difficult path for most of his major titles like Djokovic did. That's bias on your part. 2004-2005 Federer dominates 2014-2015 with little issues.


Sure.


Sure. Just putting it out there that you're blaming Fed for not blossoming early, but Djokovic himself didn't blossom at 19 and had his own struggles in what were supposed to be prime years for him.


It depends on which slams. Nadal's 2010 slams, his 2013 USO and his 2017-present slams are not tougher than Federer's in 2003-2007. That's a lot of slams. As for Djokovic, there's no evidence that his post 2013 slams were tougher other than you saying so. So not much to go off.

I mean, if you're part of the crowd that thinks 2013 USO > 2004 Wimb because of LOL Roddick, then there's not much debate to be had.


It was BS bad luck. Looking at Djokodal's slams in 2019, Federer at 38 getting the toughest slam to win was incredibly BS. How is he going to keep inflating his wins with draws like that while Djokodal don't have to pull a feat anywhere near as difficult as that?
Yeah I disagree and I think it's your bias or more accurately your different understanding of tennis quality that leads you to that conclusion. I do agree that 04-05 Federer would dominate 14-15 but that doesn't necessarily mean they're equal.

Fair enough but I still do think young Djokovic does better in years Fed failed to fully capitalize on pre 2004. I think you agree but are just downplaying it a bit and of course Nadal does the best of all.

Fair enough. I don't think the only slams of Fed's that aren't strong are 03-07 ones (some of his 03-07 ones are also good there's a lot of nuance to this) but again my final conclusion is that Djokodal have had it tougher. It's not something I have the time to fully explain why right now because there's so much that goes into it but you're familiar with me and my posting history so you have some idea as to my rationale.

04 W was a good slam for Fed I have said on many occasions that 04 Rod (and even Hew) were good though the GOATness of 04 Rod is often overstated imo.

Again this happens to everyone. 12 AO Nadal had to go through GOATing Berdych, Fed, and Djok. Djokovic likely wins CYGS in 2011 if Nadal draws Fed instead of him. There's plenty of cases where each guys gotten unlucky. I will say that Fed and Djok tend to have worse draw luck then Nadal. Hewitt has the all time worst draw luck by far though (might be my bias but I fully believe it)
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
How old are you? I'm 42. I was posting on boards like this one in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Plenty of posters knew that there were significant holes in the games of both Hewitt and Roddick long before 2004. Safin was different certainly - he didn't live up to his potential, but he also had serious injury problems.
I am of the same age as Del Potro.
Roddick and Hewitt had holes in their game but they were young and had taken down the old gen....they were definetly not weak in any way, they lost their way as Federer crushed them and later the next gen arrived and they were like over......
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Federer first 10 slam final opponents (wins) ->
Philippousis
Exhausted Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Crippled Agassi
Bagdhatis
Baby Nadal
Roddick
Gonzalez

Djokovic first 10 slam final opponents (wins) ->
Tsonga (peak Fed in semi)
Murray (prime Fed in semi)
Nadal
Nadal (prime Fed in semi)
Nadal (Murray in semi)
Murray
Federer
Murray
Federer
Federer
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Federer last 3 slam wins ->
AO 17 Nadal (great win)
Cryic
Cryic

Djokovic last 3 slam wins ->
In form Nadal
In form Federer playing prime tennis
In form peak Thiem

So Djokovic had it tougher in his early and late career o_O
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Truth being told Nalbandian ferrero Roddick Hewitt gonzales are way better than Zverev etc. Even if Zverev and Tsitsipas beat Nadal and Djokovic now they are about 3 years too late to be taken seriously given Rafa and Novak are shadows of what they were.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Its way easier to face chumps than ATGs when you're trying to build your career. This is so simple and I don't see what the difficulty is here: Federer had to beat Roddick, Hewit, Safin, and ancient Backassi to assert himself, whereas Nadal had to face the same with Federer thrown in, and Nole the same minus Backassi but with Fedal thrown in. Fed got to build confidence that most players never get to experience for months, let alone years off his substandard clowns.
Fed already had built up his confidence in 2004 and was firmly the best, he didn't need to build anything in 05 or 06 or 07.

Logic here is : Given a choice to have less talented guys growing up with you or below you in the next gen 5-6 years below you, it is always better to have below you than with because guys with you wil anyway go down if you are more talented but those below you will always be ahead of you.

Check the prev eras, when a champ arrived 4-5 years younger the prev gen ATG retired or stopped winning slams...... Federer at least has competed hard till nearly 40 and won a few slams along the way.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
About equal really.

Only delusional people will say tougher after the last 5 years.

And, of course, the usual suspects vote stronger overall :-D
Djokovic won 16/17 slams facing big 4, often multiple in one slam.

Federer won 12 of his slams facing Bagdhatis, Philippousis, Roddick, Gonzalez, Kiefer etc before Djokovic/Nadal fully matured.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Federer last 3 slam wins ->
AO 17 Nadal (great win)
Cryic
Cryic

Djokovic last 3 slam wins ->
In form Nadal
In form Federer playing prime tennis
In form peak Thiem

So Djokovic had it tougher in his early and late career o_O
Federer

AO 2017 win - Someone 5 years younger and an ATG
Someone 7 years younger
Someone 7 years younger

Djokovic

A 34 yr old ATG who is 1 yr older
A 38 year old Grandpa
A clown who was almost 27 and yet to win his 1st grand slam.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Federer

AO 2017 win - Someone 5 years younger and an ATG
Someone 7 years younger
Someone 7 years younger

Djokovic

A 34 yr old ATG who is 1 yr older
A 38 year old Grandpa
A clown who was almost 27 and yet to win his 1st grand slam.
In form Federer and Nadal playing close to prime tennis >>>>> Cryic, Bagdhatis, Philippousis, Roddick or any of those 04-07, 17 clowns lmao. :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Federer first 10 slam final opponents (wins) ->
Philippousis
Exhausted Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Crippled Agassi
Bagdhatis
Baby Nadal
Roddick
Gonzalez

Djokovic first 10 slam final opponents (wins) ->
Tsonga (peak Fed in semi)
Murray (prime Fed in semi)
Nadal
Nadal (prime Fed in semi)
Nadal (Murray in semi)
Murray
Federer
Murray
Federer
Federer
@metsman this is what I mean about building your confidence against second tier competition versus building it by breaking through prime ATGs. I was just too lazy to put up the actual names/felt you'd seen them before.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
@metsman this is what I mean about building your confidence against second tier competition versus building it by breaking through prime ATGs. I was just too lazy to put up the actual names/felt you'd seen them before.
Can't really take a guy seriously if he leaves Kokutikas out, as he was maybe Fed's toughest opponent in those days. That tells me it's not a serious post made in good faith.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Can't really take a guy seriously if he leaves Kokutikas out, as he was maybe Fed's toughest opponent in those days. That tells me it's not a serious post made in good faith.
He has a GOAT-contending avatar though.
 
Top