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

Have Nadal and Djokovic has greater slam competition than Federer?


  • Total voters
    125
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Yeah, forum too Fed-centric LMAO.
more like the Truth is so strong even Fedfans don't deny it anymore. This is an encouraging sign, not just for Tennis, but humanity as a whole. Maybe one day we can have Peace.
 

RS

Legend


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.
What about guys who are lower ranked playing super tennis?
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Crazy stuff. 2007/2008 Nadal is favourite Nadal on clay because he moved like 2005/2006 and served and attacked better. Federer did very well here probably his best showing vs Nadal in a RG match.
How about 2011 Fed ? Yes, I know, he blew that lead in the 1st, but still, the general score was tighter than in any RG F between them.
 
Last edited:

Omega_7000

Legend
The generation 5 to 6 years younger than Djokodal have been the worst generation of tennis players in the history of tennis

The generation behind this pathetic generation have also been completely useless with the exception of Thiem getting lucky at the USO

Now we have to wait and see if the third generation of players behind Djokodal can finally start winning the big tournaments. If Federer had three dud generation of players behind him and his primary competition was a past his prime 38 year old all time great, he would be sitting on 30 majors
 

FedeRadi

Rookie
What about guys who are lower ranked playing super tennis?
Untestable.
It's just my opinion, but Tennis is a sum 0 game, it's really hard, if not impossible, know how a player played one match because the level of the opponent changes the perceptions that a viewer can have about a player.
In other words, it's possible the opponent makes you playing bad.
I have my own "eye-test" opinion on some matches(Ex. for Nole: Wawrinka deserves a lot of credit for 2015 RG final win, Nole deserves more blame for 2016 USO final loss).
But this is subjective.
Lower ranked opponents playing great tennis and great opponents playing badly happens. I think we can't even always recognize how a players played(I remember Roddick saying he was playing very well in 2012 Olympics against Djokovic, but was Nole who made him look a journeyman).
Returning to my point: we have a good sample of tournaments in GS won by big 3. I'm sure everyone of them played well playing lower ranked players and great opponents who played badly. I, also, think these situations compensate in a big sample like that.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Arguing for any RG final Nadal below a 9/10 (unless you're using a special scale for him) is absolute nonsense. Never mind his third or second best RG form.
I have 08/10/12 as the clear top 3. Is this a common opinion that 07 is that good? I think I'd have it 4th (not sure) but I've always though 08/10/12 were the stratospheric untouchable FO Nadals.
 

RS

Legend
Untestable.
It's just my opinion, but Tennis is a sum 0 game, it's really hard, if not impossible, know how a player played one match because the level of the opponent changes the perceptions that a viewer can have about a player.
In other words, it's possible the opponent makes you playing bad.
I have my own "eye-test" opinion on some matches(Ex. for Nole: Wawrinka deserves a lot of credit for 2015 RG final win, Nole deserves more blame for 2016 USO final loss).
But this is subjective.
Lower ranked opponents playing great tennis and great opponents playing badly happens. I think we can't even always recognize how a players played(I remember Roddick saying he was playing very well in 2012 Olympics against Djokovic, but was Nole who made him look a journeyman).
Returning to my point: we have a good sample of tournaments in GS won by big 3. I'm sure everyone of them played well playing lower ranked players and great opponents who played badly. I, also, think these situations compensate in a big sample like that.
The eye test is how the big 3 became so good and is how we evaluate even though it is subjective it is easy to see when a lesser players is playing great.

Guys like Safin of AO 05 and Del Potro RG 09 were in mind blowing form and get called weak if we just looking at names and rankings. Same with Agassi of AO 04/USO 04 who gets called a stick but he was actually playing prime level tennis despite being 34.
 

ElisRF

Professional
RG 2007 Nadal was peak Nadal, only behind RG 2008 (maybe arguably RG 2012). To say in seriousness that RG 2007 final Nadal is 8.5/10 shows either you have no idea what are you talking about or you have some serious damage due to insane level of butthurt.
That is lengths the Federer competition bashing will go to even bring down Nadal then on another turn use him to show how weak Federer had it.

No version Nadal in any RG final was worse than 2014 Federer in a slam final nevermind 2007 Nadal.
 

ElisRF

Professional
I have 08/10/12 as the clear top 3. Is this a common opinion that 07 is that good? I think I'd have it 4th (not sure) but I've always though 08/10/12 were the stratospheric untouchable FO Nadals.
I would have 2007 up in that list if not even ahead of 2010.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
It was the only set he lost on clay all year and Novak was GOATing
Nadal lost to Verdasco at Madrid.
Novak GOATing will still not get him 8 games in a row if Nadal is playing well in that stretch.
Its not that Nadal lost that 3rd set, its that he lost 8 games in a row.
 

FedeRadi

Rookie
The eye test is how the big 3 became so good and is how we evaluate even though it is subjective it is easy to see when a lesser players is playing great.

Guys like Safin of AO 05 and Del Potro RG 09 were in mind blowing form and get called weak if we just looking at names and rankings. Same with Agassi of AO 04/USO 04 who gets called a stick but he was actually playing prime level tennis despite being 34.
Not so easy IMO, and this causes a bias in favor of Federer.
A player has to respond to the shots he receives. And some player(And Federer is one of them) play their best tennis when they hit a lot winners. Others players(And Nole and Rafa is two of them) play their best tennis when their shots are extremely hard to return with efficiency, making the opponent seems weak. Obviously, it's not black and white, there are shapes of that.
I'm sure Federer played some lower ranked player in a great day/period. But I think it's the same for Nole and Rafa, and it's their credit for making them seems playing worse than they actually played.
 

RS

Legend
Not so easy IMO, and this causes a bias in favor of Federer.
A player has to respond to the shots he receives. And some player(And Federer is one of them) play their best tennis when they hit a lot winners. Others players(And Nole and Rafa is two of them) play their best tennis when their shots are extremely hard to return with efficiency, making the opponent seems weak. Obviously, it's not black and white, there are shapes of that.
I'm sure Federer played some lower ranked player in a great day/period. But I think it's the same for Nole and Rafa, and it's their credit for making them seems playing worse than they actually played.
Many people say Federer faced more of this guys and the field has more depth.

The styles are different with Djokdal compared to Federer with winners and stuff but Safin of AO 05 was a beast and people count him as part of a weak era stat.
 

BauerAlmeida

Professional
At first, I would have said Federer had it easier. Although New Balls was a really strong generation, Federer didn't have an ATG in his generation, while Nadal and Djokovic had each other. But the Big 3 ended up having a really long career, unthinkable years ago, and Federer ended up competing for a decade with two ATG who were five and six years younger, thus having an age disadvantage. OTOH, Nadal and Djokovic didn't have any ATG coming up after them so they could continue racking up slams comfortably in their late-'20s and early/mid-'30s. Maybe I'd say Federer had it tougher, then Djokovic, then Nadal. But there really isn't a strong difference between them to suggest it's a relevant aspect to mention. For instance, Hewitt had a far easier competition than most of the slam winners that came after him. That's why he could get far more weeks at #1 than Murray who is a more accomplished player, or than Wawrinka, who couldn't even get to #2. But in the case of the Big 3, I don't think competition is a relevant aspect. They all had some very tough draws and some draws that were a joke.
 

BauerAlmeida

Professional
Nadal was a non-factor in 2004, but in 2005-2007 he was already a top player, finishing comfortably #2. In 2005 he won TWO M1000 on hard courts, beating AGASSI in the final in one of them (who later reached the USO final and made Federer sweat). Yet he had to wait until 2009 to reach a slam HC final (and 2008 for a semi IIRC), so the era couldn't have been that weak.

Also if Federer got "lucky" on grass in that era without amazing grasscourters, he got incredibly unlucky on clay, facing the clay GOAT (not just the best on clay, better than anyone on any surface). Does anyone doubt he would have won Roland Garros in 2005, 2006 and 2007 without Nadal? He got lucky against Nalbandian in 2006, but the other two were 100% his with no Nadal around.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Come on, it wasn't just Novak GOATING and you know it.
Do you think Nadal was playing poorly? I mean maybe compared to his 2012 god form but he was still playing well. Djokovic was dialed in after the SF and Nadal pretty much routined him outside of that one stretch where Novak was straight treeing and he dropped off a bit. 12 Nadal was insane. I think 10 Nadal gets slept on just because he didn't beat one of Djokerer.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
"Weaker overall" WUT LMAO
CMON man....
@Sunny Ali
Machan, in general I simply don't agree with weaker/stronger era claims. Players can only beat who's across the net from them. The top-3 were all superior to the competition, that's all. Now depending on the degree of superiority, the gap is either narrow or wide. Sampras, for example. His skill on grass was so sublime, nobody could match it so there was a wide chasm between him and his competitors on grass. Federer on the other hand didn't have that kind of advantage on grass so he's been beaten by the likes of Djokovic repeatedly in finals. So the chasm isn't as wide. It doesn't have as much to do with competition as skill superiority. Simple as that.
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
Machan, in general I simply don't agree with weaker/stronger era claims. Players can only beat who's across the net from them. The top-3 were all superior to the competition, that's all. Now depending on the degree of superiority, the gap is either narrow or wide. Sampras, for example. His skill on grass was so sublime, nobody could match it so there was a wide chasm between him and his competitors on grass. Federer on the other hand didn't have that kind of advantage on grass so he's been beaten by the likes of Djokovic repeatedly in finals. So the chasm isn't as wide. It doesn't have as much to do with competition as skill superiority. Simple as that.
The only thing that keeps Feds competition back a tad for me is his years before the other 3 got going. He had Nadal starting in 2005.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
The only thing that keeps Feds competition back a tad for me is his years before the other 3 got going. He had Nadal starting in 2005.
That's a good point but that can be easily countered by the Federer fans by pointing out the current competition which lacks any potential all-time great. What Federer enjoyed in the period 2003-2005 (lack of an all-time great competitor), Nadal/Djokovic are enjoying now so all said and done, things get balanced out. I don't think any of them has had an unfair advantage over the others in terms of competition but the Federer fans are beating that point to death and I'm getting tired of it.
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
That's a good point but that can be easily countered by the Federer fans by pointing out the current competition which lacks any potential all-time great. What Federer enjoyed in the period 2003-2005 (lack of an all-time great competitor), Nadal/Djokovic are enjoying now so all said and done, things get balanced out. I don't think any of them has had an unfair advantage over the others in terms of competition but the Federer fans are beating that point to death and I'm getting tired of it.
Fair point and I agree with that.
They have gone off the rails man.
Complete mental breakdown.
It is like a swarm of locusts at this point.
When they get on a thread you can kiss it goodbye.
Eaten to the roots.
 
Top