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

Have Nadal and Djokovic has greater slam competition than Federer?


  • Total voters
    170
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Federer is the best grass player in the modern era and probably open era so it is a big yardstick. Roddick in 04 was on grass was just as dominant as Murray in any Wimby or any grass event in any year.
Thanks for responding. I'll wait to see what others have to say before chiming in further.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Murray is nothing? He's won the same number of Wimbledon titles as Nadal & Edberg! Get a grip Machan, seriously!

Federer is Djokovic's daddy on grass? :rolleyes:
Doesn't matter, even Thiem has won the US Open but thats doesnt make him better than Safin who is a 1 time champion.

Nd yes, Federer is Djokovic's daddy on Grass even if he has lost 3 close finals, so dont give silly arguments.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
Before 2011, Novak had 1 Grand slam, Nadal had 9 and Federer had 16, people thought Nadal and Federer would battle it out to the first to 30, as they were the top two players in the world. Novak now has 18 GS and the most successful player in the 2010s, he had to chase Fedal and fend off competition from Murray, and to a lesser extend Warwinka. Based on the opponents he had to contend against, easily Novak had the harder competition.
Why do Federer fans disagree?
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Doesn't matter, even Thiem has won the US Open but thats doesnt make him better than Safin who is a 1 time champion.

Nd yes, Federer is Djokovic's daddy on Grass even if he has lost 3 close finals, so dont give silly arguments.
:-D

Fed decided to gift his son 3 Wimbledon finals? What a generous dad.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
But Nadal and Djokovic Era overlap 95% and Federer Era overlap Nadal/Djokovic Era 80% at least.
Also, the above figures are not 'peak' figures, but average Elo ratings across all opponents they faced on GSs during their careers. Given that careers overlapp significantly, the figures are pretty relevant.
And it was not Elo that tells the opposition strength is not the same, but also opponent ATP ranking, and both figures tell exactly the same, so it is not the coincidence.
Murray RG 2016 > Roddick Wimb 2009 confirmed. Because ranking is everything, right?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Before 2011, Novak had 1 Grand slam, Nadal had 9 and Federer had 16, people thought Nadal and Federer would battle it out to the first to 30, as they were the top two players in the world. Novak now has 18 GS and the most successful player in the 2010s, he had to chase Fedal and fend off competition from Murray, and to a lesser extend Warwinka. Based on the opponents he had to contend against, easily Novak had the harder competition.
You mean the same Murray and Stan whom Fed made a mockery off at 34?
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Because not everyone is buying the idea that only Federer had an easier period while Djokodal have had giants to beat their entire careers.
Arguably every era can be made to look weak.

90s can be said to a period when Pioline type fellows made the finals, 27 ranked Goran made the final on Grass, best rival of Sampras on a fast court is a baseliner named Agassi .... so how deadly would Pete be in the modern era against Andre ? ..... serious questions on Sampras's dominance.

Then somebody will say Federer didn't have rivals in his peak but those same rivals made Sampras retire and stopped Andre from winning slams after mid 03, plus Nadal despite winning clay slams from 05 and making wimbledon finals from 06 could not make any HC final until 09, that means the HC field was too strong, isn't it ?????

Then somebody says 08-13 is a strong period which is true, but from Nadal's perspective he feasted some non clay slams between transition period of Federer-Djokovic when 1 champion ATG was leaving his peak and another champion ATG was yet to enter his peak, raises questions on Nadal's calibre too because before 08 and after 11 he has nothing to show except that US open 2013 which was a worthy win over Novak.... just 1 win. .... So talks of Nadal winning it all strong also goes out of the window

But then if you ask me then I would say that Federer, Nadal, Hewitt, Murray etc etc all had it tough.

TRUTH IS ..... Only time we never had an actualy weak era was in the last 4 years when these instagram punks with weak mental conditioning reduced Tennis to a mockery

2020 USO Final was the peak of mockery, every champion of the past who was a bit unlucky in his time (Like Goran, Roddick, Rafter etc etc ) would be thinking "Damn ... wish I was playing in this period.... even I could have taken home 1-2 cheap slams"
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
The type of Tennis which Nick Kyrgios is playing now is what he should have been playing in 2015 and should have hired a great coach and focused on challenging the big 3 in coming years with a disciplined focus, but he was too busy talking trash on social media.

Thiem has been a loser for many years now, he should have started winning slams as early as 2015-2016.

Dimitrov for ages has been touted as Baby Fed but he was crap

Medvedev has come up but still mentally a midget.

Tsi-Sascha are as unpredictable as ever.

This is what enabled Novak to go from 6 Slams on his 27th Birthday to 18 slams at 33.
 

Tony48

Legend
Nadal and Djokovic had to contend with each other and players who could easily contend for No. 1: Murray and Federer, mostly because they were all-surface players.

Who did Federer have to contend with? No one. He was the only player in his generation that routinely made the semis and finals of all of the slams....not just one or two surfaces. Whereas the Big 4 generation were mainstays and challenged each other everywhere. One slip up, and the No. 1 ranking was lost. Just look at 2016. Federer's era of players could only play on one or two surfaces, so there was no danger in Federer ever losing the No. 1 ranking to anyone.
 
Last edited:

socallefty

Hall of Fame
This thread has convinced me that it is not particular eras that are weak, but tennis as a sport itself for men. Must be a sport played by non-athletes while the serious athletes are playing football, American football, basketball, baseball, rugby etc.
 

Crazy Finn

Professional
Nadal and Djokovic had to contend with each other and players who could easily contend for No. 1: Murray and Federer, mostly because they were all-surface players.

Who did Federer have to contend with? No one. He was the only player in his generation that routinely made the semis and finals of all of the slams....not just one or two surfaces. Whereas the Big 4 generation were mainstays and challenged each other everywhere. One slip up, and the No. 1 ranking was lost. Just look at 2016. Federer's era of players could only play on one or two surfaces, so there was no danger in Federer ever losing the No. 1 ranking to anyone.
This is a very narrow view of things. From 2003-2005, Federer had Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin as fellow slam winners to contend with. He generally beat them, but they were previous slam winners, and Safin even beat Federer in at a slam. Starting in 2006, Agassi was essentially done, but Federer had Nadal to contend with at both Wimbledon and the French. Starting in 2007, Novak made the finals of the USO and won the AO the several months later.

At that point they have the same field to deal with. The big advantage of Rafa and Djokovic is that they're younger than Federer and they don't have to play against themselves. So, you're basically saying that Federer had it easier from 2003-2006. I would say that that's probably true to a degree, as he didn't have prime Rafa or Novak to deal with for a couple of years. Of course, Rafa and Novak have had a couple of years recently were they have only had each other and a bunch of guys that haven't done anything either - a pretty weak field other than each other - and occasionally Federer. In my mind, they kind of cancel each other out.

Novak's competition in 2018: Rafa, old Federer, Zverev, DelPo, Anderson, Cilic, Thiem, Nishikori, Isner (year end ATP top 10)
Rafa's competition in 2019: Novak, old Federer, Thiem, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev, Berrettini, Agut, Monfils
Federer's competition in 2004: Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Moya, Henman, Coria, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio
Rafa arrives at #2 by the end of 2005.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic faced one of the three highest ranked opponents in all of his draws to the final:

Djokovic 28/28 (100%)
Nadal 23/28 (82.1%)
Federer 21/31 (67.7%)
 

steenkash

Hall of Fame
You mean the same Murray and Stan whom Fed made a mockery off at 34?
Well, Federer was a great player till around age 35, so why not, that reinforces my point, Novak had to deal with players like Federer and Nadal who were beating top athletes like Wawrinka and Murray. Before Djokdal Federer was facing against bums.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well, Federer was a great player till around age 35, so why not, that reinforces my point, Novak had to deal with players like Federer and Nadal who were beating top athletes like Wawrinka and Murray. Before Djokdal Federer was facing against bums.
Well, if they're dominated by a 34 year old whom Hewitt/Roddick/Agassi played closer when he was younger, it doesn't support your point.
 

Thetouch

Professional
Thiem and co play with these big racquets and on these slow courts making them look stronger but then that is not true, Safin and Roddick were more powerful that him, Roddick serve and forehand in the 03-05 period used to zoom past guys faster than the blink of an eye.
I was talking about athletic ability, speed and power combined, so I don't think Roddick can be compared to the younger generation now
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Yeah maybe. But again I didn't think Roddick was a great athlete either.
Roddick if born 10-12 years would be having a more all round game and better running power and hitting power, he was built like a bull even back then, he would have been genuinely lethal in the modern era. His game was built in the 90s and thats why he wasn't that great in the modern era, give him the chance to grow up in the 00s and then he would surely be better than every one of these awkward tall players who are weak mentally.

Same with Hewitt, he would have been more dangerous of born 10-15 years later than he was. They were all sufferers of growing in the 90s and then finding themselves along with Federer in the 00s.
 

duaneeo

Legend
2012: Nadal a non-factor at Wimbledon and absent from USO; no strong Next-Gens.
2013: Nadal absent from the AO; injured Federer has worst ever season; NSNG.
2014: Nadal again a non-factor at Wimbledon and absent from USO; past-prime Federer suffers from slamidous; NSNG.
2015: Injured Nadal a non-factor; see above about Federer; NSNG.
2016: Injured Nadal and Federer absent for most of the season; NSNG.
2017-present: All Big-3 are in their 30s and still NGNG.

Yes, Djokovic has clearly faced greater competition.
 

RS

G.O.A.T.
2012: Nadal a non-factor at Wimbledon and absent from USO; no strong Next-Gens.
2013: Nadal absent from the AO; injured Federer has worst ever season; NSNG.
2014: Nadal again a non-factor at Wimbledon and absent from USO; past-prime Federer suffers from slamidous; NSNG.
2015: Injured Nadal a non-factor; see above about Federer; NSNG.
2016: Injured Nadal and Federer absent for most of the season; NSNG.
2017-present: All Big-3 are in their 30s and still NGNG.

Yes, Djokovic has clearly faced greater competition.
Ouch.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
2012: Nadal a non-factor at Wimbledon and absent from USO; no strong Next-Gens.
2013: Nadal absent from the AO; injured Federer has worst ever season; NSNG.
2014: Nadal again a non-factor at Wimbledon and absent from USO; past-prime Federer suffers from slamidous; NSNG.
2015: Injured Nadal a non-factor; see above about Federer; NSNG.
2016: Injured Nadal and Federer absent for most of the season; NSNG.
2017-present: All Big-3 are in their 30s and still NGNG.

Yes, Djokovic has clearly faced greater competition.
You forgot 2011 ;)

2012- Nadal played one of the greatest matches ever, a match that Djokovic *won*, unlike Federer's long list of failed comebacks/wins in great matches against his competition. Of course Rafa at RG. Rafa was the same non-factor at Wimbledon as he was at RG the only time Roger won it, and unlike Roger, Novak didn't get the trophy so his resume wasn't inflated. USO he lost to Murray, so again no inflation.
2013 - So now Nadal being absent the AO is a mark against Novak, when his presence in one of the greatest matches ever doesn't count for him? Novak played another epic against Rafa at RG, where he put up a far better fight against him than Roger ever did. Of course Murray played great that year who is better competition than Roddick.
2014- Lost RG final to Nadal who I think counts as great competition there. Federer played excellent tennis at Wimbledon and simply lost to the better player who won a tight match. Even if we accept the line that Federer was "post-prime" (which contradicts him btw) he was still much tougher competition than Roddick, baby Nadal, and ancient Agassi
2015 - See above (Federer was so good this year he won 44 consecutive sets against non-Djokovic players, and also said he was a better player than ever before), crushed Nadal at RG, lost to smokin' Stan in the final
2016 - Federer was brilliant at AO, and Novak just got the better of him (again), once again lost to a smokin' Stan in the USO final

All in all, his competition of Federer, Nadal, Murray, Stan was clearly better than a who's who of Roddick, Hewitt (who was a non-factor after 2005) ancient Agassi (who was a factor at exactly 2 slams), and baby Nadal (only played him at 2 slams off-clay),...so basically Roddick was his only consistent competition off-clay in slams for the entire 04-07 period of his dominance.

cLeArLy StRoNkEr
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ElisRF

Professional
You forgot 2011 ;)

2012- Nadal played one of the greatest matches ever, a match that Djokovic *won*, unlike Federer's long list of failed comebacks/wins in great matches against his competition. Of course Rafa at RG. Rafa was the same non-factor at Wimbledon as he was at RG the only time Roger won it, and unlike Roger, Novak didn't get the trophy so his resume wasn't inflated. USO he lost to Murray, so again no inflation.
2013 - So now Nadal being absent the AO is a mark against Novak, when his presence in one of the greatest matches ever doesn't count for him? Of course Murray played great that year who is better competition than Roddick and Philippousis.
2014- Federer played excellent tennis at Wimbledon and simply lost to the better player who won a tight match. Even if we accept the line that Federer was "post-prime" (which contradicts him btw) he was still much tougher competition than Roddick, baby Nadal, ancient Agassi, Baghdatis and so on
2015 - See above (Federer was so good this year he won 44 consecutive sets against non-Djokovic players, and also said he was a better player than ever before)
2016 - Federer was brilliant at AO, and Novak just got the better of him (again).

All in all, his competition was clearly better than a who's who of Roddick, Philippousis, Baghdatis, ancient Agassi, Kiefer, baby Nadal, Hewitt, Safin, and baby Novak (if you want to even count him).
You are such a meme at this point lol.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Yes and those statements repeated is not part of a agenda.
My original post which you couldn't have read too closely allowed for the view that Federer was post-prime. Maybe (re)read it.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
I'm confused. You originally responded to my post by saying "Federer clearly played prime tennis '14-'16" as though I had said it when I didn't, I pointed it out to you, you say you saw it but wanted to "point out" something I never said...so who's agenda driven here?
 

ElisRF

Professional
I'm confused. You originally responded to my post by saying "Federer clearly played prime tennis '14-'16" as though I had said it when I didn't, I pointed it out to you, you say you saw it but wanted to "point out" something I never said...so who's agenda driven here?
Because you were bringing down Nadal on clay and grass earlier in this thread now you big up AO 16 Federer for example so it would make Djokovic look a lot better. I have a agenda sometimes but not to bring another player down.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
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).
You will agree that Roddick also won his one and only Slam without facing any member of the Big 3. Roddick was also merely 13 weeks #1 in the pre-Big 3 era, when Federer wasn't at his overall prime yet.

I don't see any relevant difference between Thiem and Roddick in terms of strength.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Because you were bringing down Nadal on clay and grass earlier in this thread now you big up AO 16 Federer for example so it would make Djokovic look a lot better. I have a agenda sometimes but not to bring another player down.
I did not, I merely stated my views about each player's level. Even Fedfans have noted here how out of sorts Nadal was on the surface and mentally in the 06 Wimbledon match. Don't think I ever brought Rafa down on clay.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
You will agree that Roddick also won his one and only Slam without facing any member of the Big 3. Roddick was also merely 13 weeks #1 in the pre-Big 3 era, when Federer wasn't at his overall prime yet.

I don't see any relevant difference between Thiem and Roddick in terms of strength.
Then you must have an agenda
 
Top