If Djokovic had never existed, who do you think, between Federer and Nadal, would have had the better career?

[Winner Sinner]

Now that Fedal's career is definitively coming to an end, as demonstrated by a specific thread here in the forum, there is a lot of debate about who between the two of them had the better career.
A great balance reigns since there are arguments that lean towards Federer, and others that lean towards Nadal.

So a new question popped into my mind;

But if Djokovic had never existed, would this uncertainty that reigns between which of the two had the better career still exist?

In essence, who between Federer and Nadal paid the Serbian tax more?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Of course Roger Federer

Federer

 

[nolefam_2024]

Without nole fed wins 11 Wimbledons, 7/8 us opens, 8/9 AO, romes, 7/8 atp finals, 38+ masters probably and ends year end number 1 6/7 times with close to 400 weeks at number 1.

He would be so far ahead claydal. We would say, yes nadal is amazing on clay but fed owns everything else. It won't even be funny.

 

[Neptune]

Whichever of the two the establishment chooses.

 

[NatF]

Federer would still have the better career.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Someone said fed is the highest floor guy. If we assume that to be true, fed won't screw up even once. He would outright dominate tennis until he is bored and loses love to tennis which he never did. ESPN would still be putting his name and face on sports center. Mercedes will still be doing promotions.

Laver cup wouldn't even exist. Why create LC when fed is reigning number 1.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Without nole fed wins 11 Wimbledons, 7/8 us opens, 8/9 AO, romes, 7/8 atp finals, 38+ masters probably and ends year end number 1 6/7 times with close to 400 weeks at number 1.

He would be so far ahead claydal. We would say, yes nadal is amazing on clay but fed owns everything else. It won't even be funny.

I can sympathize, but if you think about it it's absurd considering;

1) That Federer, before Djokovic made the definitive leap in quality (2011), was by far the most successful, having already managed to win the impossible.

2) Nadal and Djokovic are practically the same age, while there is a 6 year difference between Federer and Djokovic.

 

[Winner Sinner]

It would be necessary to count how many important tournaments Djokovic actually took away from both of them, but in any case it would not be enough to reveal the mystery given that too many dynamics would come into play in a scenario where Djokovic had never existed.

However, certainly the two seasons in which Fedal paid the most for Djokovic's presence were 2011 for Nadal and 2015 for Federer.

 

[Hitman]

Djokovic prevented both from ending up as the GOAT, the period of AO 2017 to RG 2018 gives a clear indication how Fedal would have continued to feast for years. Having said that, Federer was hurt the most, he lost his HC GOAT status, the YEC record, the weeks at number one record, and probably would have 11 or even 12 W titles to his name. Nadal lost a massive amount also, as Nadal lost the masters record, multiple channel slams, and probably would have a couple more RG titles to his name. Their careers would have been a joke, if they took all of what Djokovic had.

 

[Daniel Andrade]

Nadal.

 

[objection_]

Slam wise:
Fed:
AO: Favoured for 2008,2011,2016
RG: None
Wim: 2014,2015,2019
USO: 50/50 at 2011, Wins 2015
28-30 slams

Nadal:
AO: 2012,2019
RG: 2021 if the foot doesn't flare up
Wim: 2011,2018
USO: 50/50 at 2011
26-28 slams
Probably favour Fed here

 

[nolefam_2024]

I can sympathize, but if you think about it it's absurd considering;

1) That Federer, before Djokovic made the definitive leap in quality (2011), was by far the most successful, having already managed to win the impossible.

2) Nadal and Djokovic are practically the same age, while there is a 6 year difference between Federer and Djokovic.

Yes 6 years difference but fed was the goat. Without nole, he would be unstoppable.

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

Now that Fedal's career is definitively coming to an end, as demonstrated by a specific thread here in the forum, there is a lot of debate about who between the two of them had the better career.
A great balance reigns since there are arguments that lean towards Federer, and others that lean towards Nadal.

So a new question popped into my mind;

But if Djokovic had never existed, would this uncertainty that reigns between which of the two had the better career still exist?

In essence, who between Federer and Nadal paid the Serbian tax more?

LOL! The daily posting of these types of discussions because some can’t get over that Federer is not bother enough about the GOAT debate or Djokovic. Forgot about Nadal, it’s Federer who some wanted to be despondent over career. LOL, for the fake Djokovic fan who spams this forum on a daily basis about Federer. Why so hurt that Federer created the LC? Maybe because it’s something Djokovic can’t do and Federer doesn’t live vicariously through his playing career. Let’s face it, Djokovic’s achievements are hollow if the person directed at are being ignored by that person.

 

[Aabye5]

Yes 6 years difference but fed was the goat. Without nole, he would be unstoppable.

But Rafa was a worse matchup for Fed than Nole, minus the age difference.

 

[Sport]

Slam wise:
Fed:
AO: Favoured for 2008,2011,2016
RG: None
Wim: 2014,2015,2019
USO: 50/50 at 2011, Wins 2015
28-30 slams

Nadal:
AO: 2012,2019
RG: 2021 if the foot doesn't flare up
Wim: 2011,2018
USO: 50/50 at 2011
26-28 slams
Probably favour Fed here

Dear objection, if you allow me an objection, I don't see the rationale behind your mathematical calculus here.

Federer has 20 Slams. You added 7-8 hypothetical Slams for him. 20 + 7-8 is 27-28, not 28-30.

Nadal has 20 Slams. You added 5-6 hypothetical Slams for him. 22 + 5-6 is 27-28.

If you allow me further constructive criticism, I'd say given Federer's history of upsets with Tsonga at Slams, the AO 2011 was 50/50 for the Swiss. Analogously, given Nadal's history at RG, and his potential rivals at RG 2015, I'd give him a 50/50 chance to win RG considering the Spaniard owned both Murray and Wawrinka at the Philippe Chatrier (none of them ever won a set against the Spaniard at RG). While Wawrinka beat Nadal in a close encounter in Rome 2015, and Murray beat Nadal in Madrid 2015, Nadal is more dominant at RG than in Masters 1000 on clay, and we have plenty of examples of Novak beating X year Nadal in a Masters 1000 on clay only to later lose to him at RG. So beating Nadal in a Masters 1000 on clay is not a clear indication of beating him at the French Open.

Given the aforementioned logic, we have:

Federer has 20 Slams. I'll add 6-8 hypothetical Slams for him. 20 + 6-8 = 26-28 hypothetical Slams for Federer.
Nadal has 22 Slams. I'll add 5-7 hypothetical Slams for him. 22 + 5-7 = 27-29 hypothetical Slams for Nadal.

Probably favour Nadal here.

Anyway, it's an untestable, therefore not relevant topic of discussion.

 

[nolefam_2024]

But Rafa was a worse matchup for Fed than Nole, minus the age difference.

Yet rafa was always injured out of clay and fed was there. Plus rafa and fed never played at us opens. Fed owned it until 2009 (delpo loss but still final). Nole beat him back to back by 1 pt.

 

[Winner Sinner]

LOL! The daily posting of these types of discussions because some can’t get over that Federer is not bother enough about the GOAT debate or Djokovic. Forgot about Nadal, it’s Federer who some wanted to be despondent over career. LOL, for the fake Djokovic fan who spams this forum on a daily basis about Federer. Why so hurt that Federer created the LC? Maybe because it’s something Djokovic can’t do and Federer doesn’t live vicariously through his playing career. Let’s face it, Djokovic’s achievements are hollow if the person directed at are being ignored by that person.

But who are you angry with?

 

[Winners or Errors]

Fed would have gotten bored and retired much sooner, finishing below 20 slams. Not sure about Nadal…

 

[Aabye5]

Yet rafa was always injured out of clay and fed was there. Plus rafa and fed never played at us opens. Fed owned it until 2009 (delpo loss but still final). Nole beat him back to back by 1 pt.

No, because we don't know who is playing Fed in those losses. Novak was the number 1 seed in 2011, so the draws would probably look very different. It's even possible that Rafa wins the Grand Slam in 2011.

Besides, we know the real winner in this hypothetical situation -- Monfils.

 

[nolefam_2024]

No, because we don't know who is playing Fed in those losses. Novak was the number 1 seed in 2011, so the draws would probably look very different. It's even possible that Rafa wins the Grand Slam in 2011.

Besides, we know the real winner in this hypothetical situation -- Monfils.

Let's forget about draws because if you start that way nothing would make sense.

 

[Aabye5]

Let's forget about draws because if you start that way nothing would make sense.

Eh, it still makes sense, for the most part. It's not like there are 10 other potential challengers, really.

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

But who are you angry with?

The continuing threads on this subject is being done purposefully over and over again between the “fans” of the Big 3 to keep This so-called GOAT debate alive. The one’s who keep doing this don’t actually watch tennis matches because their names never appear in match threads.

 

[JoJoHackshow]

Djokovic prevented both from ending up as the GOAT, the period of AO 2017 to RG 2018 gives a clear indication how Fedal would have continued to feast for years. Having said that, Federer was hurt the most, he lost his HC GOAT status, the YEC record, the weeks at number one record, and probably would have 11 or even 12 W titles to his name. Nadal lost a massive amount also, as Nadal lost the masters record, multiple channel slams, and probably would have a couple more RG titles to his name. Their careers would have been a joke, if they took all of what Djokovic had.

Nah man it wasn't Nole who prevented Fed from being the GOAT.

It was the CIE and the fact Nole was 6 years younger than Fed

 

[objection_]

Dear objection, if you allow me an objection, I don't see the rationale behind your mathematical calculus here.

Federer has 20 Slams. You added 7-8 hypothetical Slams for him. 20 + 7-8 is 27-28, not 28-30.

Nadal has 20 Slams. You added 5-6 hypothetical Slams for him. 22 + 5-6 is 27-28.

If you allow me further constructive criticism, I'd say given Federer's history of upsets with Tsonga at Slams, the AO 2011 was 50/50 for the Swiss. Analogously, given Nadal's history at RG, and his potential rivals at RG 2015, I'd give him a 50/50 chance to win RG considering the Spaniard owned both Murray and Wawrinka at the Philippe Chatrier (none of them ever won a set against the Spaniard at RG). While Wawrinka beat Nadal in a close encounter in Rome 2015, and Murray beat Nadal in Madrid 2015, Nadal is more dominant at RG than in Masters 1000 on clay, and we have plenty of examples of Novak beating X year Nadal in a Masters 1000 on clay only to later lose to him at RG. So beating Nadal in a Masters 1000 on clay is not a clear indication of beating him at the French Open.

Given the aforementioned logic, we have:

Federer has 20 Slams. I'll add 6-8 hypothetical Slams for him. 20 + 6-8 = 26-28 hypothetical Slams for Federer.
Nadal has 22 Slams. I'll add 5-7 hypothetical Slams for him. 22 + 5-7 = 27-29 hypothetical Slams for Nadal.

Probably favour Nadal here.

Anyway, it's an untestable, therefore not relevant topic of discussion.

Yeah my mistake on the fed calculation
Nadal has 22 Slams and i added 4-6 hypotheticals (dependant on whether nadal still gets the injury at RG 2021)
Fed played Tsonga at AO 2008, not 2011. I did say favoured, not a lock, although Federer's only real upset with Tsonga at slams was Wim 11, full credit to Tsonga there.
You may have a point about 2015 Nadal at RG, although he showed 0 indication that he had the level to actually win that slam based on his performances in tournaments before and after, coupled by his weak draw to the quarter final. Regardless of whether he faced Djokovic or not, hitting a mere 3 forehand winners in 3 sets is nothing short of terrible, especially in a match which could have easily ended 6-2 6-3 6-1.
Either way it's a fun discussion to have, no fusses about a difference in opinion.

 

[The Guru]

The real difference is Nishikori would have 5000 less losses on his record

 

[nolefam_2024]

The real difference is Nishikori would have 5000 less losses on his record

Do you think Kei could have beaten Fed in BO5 with 8 years of age difference? I certainly think so. He was as good a baseliner as we would see.

 

[Hitman]

Nah man it wasn't Nole who prevented Fed from being the GOAT.

It was the CIE and the fact Nole was 6 years younger than Fed

It was Nole. Without him Roger destroys all records and becomes GOAT.

 

[SonnyT]

Definitely, Nadal! He would just take 2010 and go from there! Remember Federer had no defense against '10 Nadal, on HC, grass and clay.

 

[RS]

Do you think Kei could have beaten Fed in BO5 with 8 years of age difference? I certainly think so. He was as good a baseliner as we would see.

Nishikori was fun to watch from the baseline. His serve was the main problem and the fact he had to work super hard for points and then some bad luck with the injury problems.

 

[Midaso240]

Oh, that's easy Federer. Of all the big 3, for sure he's the one that would win the most without the others because he has the most talent. The other 2 surpassed him with competitiveness, but I don't know if they would have had the same grit if there wasn't someone like Federer to try to beat

 

[Winner Sinner]

I, who asked this question, honestly couldn't answer this question.
We really need to retrace Federer and Nadal's careers step by step from 2011 onwards. But as others have said, even doing so would bring into play too many variables that it would still be impossible to establish who would have had the better career between the two if Djokovic had not existed.
The draws as we know them would all have to be changed retroactively.
Classic example, at the 2011 US Open how can you establish who would have won that edition if Djokovic had not been there. Federer put Djokovic in much more difficulty in the semifinals, managing to cancel 2 match points on his serve, than Nadal managed to do in the final act. But that was still a Federer who suffered terribly in the matchup against Nadal on every type of surface except indoor hard.
The transitive property in tennis does not exist.

Without Djokovic, Federer would most likely have won the 3 editions of Wimbledon in 2014, 2015 and 2019.
Nadal would most likely have won those of 2011 and 2018.
But even here it cannot be established with absolute certainty.

Regardless of this question about Fedal, losing a final does not necessarily mean that he is the second best player of the tournament but that he is the second best player of the tournament with that particular draw.
A finalist defeated by player X does not necessarily mean that he would win as a semifinalist defeated by player X.

Example limited to the majors of this 2024;

Would Medvedev have beaten Djokovic at the Australian Open?
Would Zverev have beaten Sinner at Roland Garros?
Would Djokovic have beaten Medvedev at Wimbledon?
Would Fritz have beaten Draper at the US Open?

But this is a discussion that can be extended to the winners themselves, but it would enter a dead end.

 

[Jonesy]

Probably Nadal, as Fedal would play more often and that would only elevate the confidence of Nadal in beating Fed and diminish Fed confidence. Plus, what broke Nadal's momentum was Novak by beating him a lot in 2011, without that Nadal's confidence would skyrock to dominate the 2010s. The reason why Nadal didn't have his era of number 1 is because Novak stole his.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Already a tennis GOAT and sports legend, but Nadal was better against both Djo and Fed at most given times and would have ran away with things.

 

[Aabye5]

I, who asked this question, honestly couldn't answer this question.
We really need to retrace Federer and Nadal's careers step by step from 2011 onwards. But as others have said, even doing so would bring into play too many variables that it would still be impossible to establish who would have had the better career between the two if Djokovic had not existed.
The draws as we know them would all have to be changed retroactively.
Classic example, at the 2011 US Open how can you establish who would have won that edition if Djokovic had not been there. Federer put Djokovic in much more difficulty in the semifinals, managing to cancel 2 match points on his serve, than Nadal managed to do in the final act. But that was still a Federer who suffered terribly in the matchup against Nadal on every type of surface except indoor hard.
The transitive property in tennis does not exist.

Without Djokovic, Federer would most likely have won the 3 editions of Wimbledon in 2014, 2015 and 2019.
Nadal would most likely have won those of 2011 and 2018.
But even here it cannot be established with absolute certainty.

Regardless of this question about Fedal, losing a final does not necessarily mean that he is the second best player of the tournament but that he is the second best player of the tournament with that particular draw.
A finalist defeated by player X does not necessarily mean that he would win as a semifinalist defeated by player X.

Example limited to the majors of this 2024;

Would Medvedev have beaten Djokovic at the Australian Open?
Would Zverev have beaten Sinner at Roland Garros?
Would Djokovic have beaten Medvedev at Wimbledon?
Would Fritz have beaten Draper at the US Open?

But this is a discussion that can be extended to the winners themselves, but it would enter a dead end.

Would Medvedev have beaten Djokovic at the Australian Open?
Probably, but that's because of Nole's level, not Med's.

Would Zverev have beaten Sinner at Roland Garros?
Less likely

Would Djokovic have beaten Medvedev at Wimbledon?
Yes

Would Fritz have beaten Draper at the US Open?
Yes

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Nadal since he was a terrible matchup for Roger. He did more to damage feds career than Djoker ever did as it was really age that did Roger in at the end. Not really Djoker. If Fed was just a few years younger he wouldn’t have had any issue with Djoker at all but the issues with Nadal would have always been there. Also nadals high level longevity would have increased cause there would have been no Djoker around who took years off his career
With their battles and long arse matches and running around

 

[Winner Sinner]

Would Medvedev have beaten Djokovic at the Australian Open?
Probably, but that's because of Nole's level, not Med's.

Would Zverev have beaten Sinner at Roland Garros?
Less likely

Would Djokovic have beaten Medvedev at Wimbledon?
Yes

Would Fritz have beaten Draper at the US Open?
Yes

Well... assuming that obviously we will never have proof.

The only one where I feel like I partially agree is at Wimbledon, even if that Medvedev thanks to an incisiveness of the serve that has momentarily returned to that of his best days, I don't know if against that still convalescent Djokovic he wouldn't have had an even match.

At the Australian Open, given the enormous difficulty Medvedev had in getting rid of Ruusuvuori, Hurkacz and Zverev, why take it for granted that he would have beaten Djokovic who, before losing badly to Sinner, had shown signs of growth by sweeping away Mannarino and dominating Fritz more than the score said?

As for the US Open, I don't know, Draper was pretty hot before going out with Sinner (all matches he won without conceding a single set).
Ok Fritz favorite but his victory with Draper is absolutely not a given.

 

[Aabye5]

Well... assuming that obviously we will never have proof.

The only one where I feel like I partially agree is at Wimbledon, even if that Medvedev thanks to an incisiveness of the serve that has momentarily returned to that of his best days, I don't know if against that still convalescent Djokovic he wouldn't have had an even match.

At the Australian Open, given the enormous difficulty Medvedev had in getting rid of Ruusuvuori, Hurkacz and Zverev, why take it for granted that he would have beaten Djokovic who, before losing badly to Sinner, had shown signs of growth by sweeping away Mannarino and dominating much more than expected? a Fritz said the score?

As for the US Open, I don't know, Draper was pretty hot before going out with Sinner (all matches he won without conceding a single set).
Ok Fritz favorite but his victory with Draper is absolutely not a given.

No, I said Djokovic would have won. The question is "Would Djokovic have beaten Medvedev at Wimbledon?", and I said 'Yes'.

Fritz would arguably be the heavy favorite. Two wins over Draper in 2024 (albeit on clay), had played an M1000 final before, and has better match fitness over best of 5.

 

[inflation_era]

Fed is GOAT even with Djokovic in the picture. Sorry, but no amount of weak era slams can justify someone winning more slams after 30 than before, LOLLLL

 

[Winner Sinner]

No, I said Djokovic would have won. The question is "Would Djokovic have beaten Medvedev at Wimbledon?", and I said 'Yes'.

Fritz would arguably be the heavy favorite. Two wins over Draper in 2024 (albeit on clay), had played an M1000 final before, and has better match fitness over best of 5.

I understood, and in fact I said that I am not convinced that at Wimbledon that Djokovic who was still recovering would certainly have won with a Medvedev who had found a more incisive serve, but it is still the only scenario I could agree with, that is, that Djokovic would have won anyway.

While at the Australian Open I repeat, why should a Medvedev who had struggled enormously against Ruusuvuori, Hurkacz and Zverev be sure that he would have beaten a Djokovic who was showing signs of growth before losing to Sinner?
Furthermore, I add, in the context of a final to be played in the evening with all the benefits for the Serbian.

On the US Open, I repeat, it's ok to give Fritz the favourite, but against that hot Draper I wouldn't swear by the American's victory.
The previous direct clashes between the two mean everything as nothing, given that Draper was playing by far the best tennis of his still young career before facing Sinner.
Fritz is a more experienced player but obviously doesn't give you certain guarantees in respecting the predictions as others can.
Even in the semi-final with Tiafoe, despite some super favorable h2h, he risked losing it before Tiafoe sabotaged himself at the end of the fourth set.

 

[Slightly Biased Nadal Fan]

Without nole fed wins 11 Wimbledons, 7/8 us opens, 8/9 AO, romes, 7/8 atp finals, 38+ masters probably and ends year end number 1 6/7 times with close to 400 weeks at number 1.

He would be so far ahead claydal. We would say, yes nadal is amazing on clay but fed owns everything else. It won't even be funny.

I mean yeah potentially but all this without listing Nadal gaining another 2 AOs, 1 RG, 2 Wimbys, and probably 1 more USO not to mention a boatload more time at no 1 with all of 2011, 1st half 2012, more of 2013 as opposed to to just the last few months + even more of 2014, end of 2018, and all of 2019 instead of just the last few months. Federer would gain YE1 in 2012 and 2014 and 2015 but omitting Djokovic would likely have Nadal even more clear of Fed in masters than as is right now (sunshine double + clay sweep 2011, MC 2013, Miami and Rome 2014, MC 2015 vs Bercy 2013, IW 2014/15, Rome 2015, Bercy 2018 not mentioning pre prime Nadal likely gets Miami 07 and IW 08 while Fed picks up Montreal 07 and maybe Miami 09) since the aforementioned span still had Rafa in his prime able to perform more frequently in masters than Fed who is 29 and above (and can’t give masters that effort after 2012) from beginning of 2011 where what Djokovic wins takes a bite out of what they could have won. Both would get bumped to the point of pretty much the same as where we are right now. Weeks gap probably closer with more YE1s for Nadal, slam tally about the same not separated by much one way or the other even if Fed gets maybe a slight upper hand here, masters split about the same if not even more advantage Nadal, Federer a couple more WTFs added on and Nadal getting WTF13 under his belt. All this is a long winded way of saying that the answer is the penultimate option that the same dynamic for discourse around them would exist as is today.