Ganstaz003
Rookie
I say that as someone who isn't even a fan of Novak Djokovic. Not only because he will be the only player to have won every single grand-slam at least twice, but because of his OVERALL balanced dominance and unique feats throughout every grand-slam tournament. In comparison, Nadal has only unique and unmatched feats of dominance in just a single grand-slam (Roland Garros), and has none outside, Djokovic has many throughout every grand-slam, and to some extent, Roger Federer too. Djokovic, on top of being the only player with 2 or more grand-slams in every grand-slam tournament (assuming he beats Tsitsipas in this year's Roland Garros final), he will also have beaten Nadal twice at Roland Garros, his favorite tournament, whilst being unbeaten against Nadal at Australian Open, Djokovic's own favorite tournament. Djokovic would also have a winning record against Roger Federer at Wimbledon, the most successful player at Wimbledon in terms of raw titles won, whilst having a winning record over Federer at Australian Open, the tournament he is most successful in. Djokovic also has a winning overall head to head against both Federer and Nadal throughout every surface, and is also the only player in the modern era to have won all 4 different grand-slams consecutively, with neither Nadal or Federer have managing it. Djokovic also holds the most number of weeks at number 1, followed closely by Roger Federer. I'm pretty confident there are more such feats but I'll let others post them.
Likewise, Federer is the only player to have won 5 or more grand-slam titles in 3 out of 4 grand-slams. This maybe matched by Djokovic eventually, but not yet so far. Federer is also the only player to have won 5 consecutive grand-slams at the same time in two different grand-slams consisting of two different surfaces (US Open and Wimbledon). Federer's overall dominance in three out of 4 grand-slam events has only ever been matched (or surpassed) by Djokovic himself. And as already mentioned, only trounced closely by Djokovic at number of weeks at number 1.
Meanwhile, for all of Nadal's one-sided dominance at Roland Garros and the monopoly that he has had their, his record overall outside of Roland Garros (relative to Federer and Djokovic) is rather abysmal. He has no unique feats or accomplishments to speak of. Yes, he might lead Djokovic in slams head to head but that doesn't tell us much, apart from the fact that Nadal isn't good enough outside of his favorite Roland Garros to meet Djokovic as many times (and to potentially lose as many times) as Djokovic is good enough to meet and lose to Nadal in his favorite grand-slam. So if anything, this actually proves Djokovic is the better player.
Also, only the head to head stats between Djokovic and Nadal are valid and relevant, and not between Djokovic and Federer or between Nadal and Federer due to the significant age difference. So we can ignore those. But the fact that Djokovic and Nadal are the same age but Djokovic has dominated Nadal more so than vice versa and dominated the game overall more so than vice versa, has to be a massive argument for why Djokovic is undeniably the greater and better player than Nadal.
If Nadal stopped winning every other grand-slam events and only continued to win Roland Garros , reaching 20 Roland Garros titles or so and finishing his career with more overall grand-slams than anybody else, then MAYBE an argument could be made that Nadal is the greatest. But not anymore. And in a way, it's good for tennis that a player with the most grand-slams isn't one who has a significantly higher number of one grand-slam than all the others. It's fitting for the greatest to also be the most balanced and well-rounded, which is exactly what Djokovic is and Federer was, compared to Nadal who is more limited as a player.
Further proof that exposes Nadal's lack of a complete game is his abysmal record in indoor tournaments. There are many prestigious indoor tournaments Nadal has never won, further outlining how one-dimensional he is and how deficient he is at adapting his game. Meanwhile, Nadal's biggest rival Djokovic has shown the ability to adapt his natural game to something else in order to win indoor events more consistently while Federer's already most complete-game means he has managed to become the most successful player under such conditions.
At one point, I considered Federer the greatest and that was when he had a target to surpass, which was the 14 grand-slam titles set by Pete Sampras. At the time, that was his biggest target and anything after that, was merely a bonus with no pressure attached. The pressure was only there at surpassing the 14 grand-slams set by Sampras. But not only did he surpass that target, he did so in one of the most dominant fashions ever, dominating 3 of the 4 grand-slam tournaments in a way not seen before. But Djokovic in the last few years has equaled this level of dominance set by Federer, and if he wins his 2nd Roland Garros title this year, he'd have without a doubt even surpassed that level of dominance.
The point here, is that it's much easier to surpass a target than to set one. Just like how Federer's primary mission was to surpass Sampras's grand-slam total, and anything else after would be a bonus because you don't really know how many grand-slams would be enough for other players to not be able to catch up to so you kind of lose motivation after you pass the target, Djokovic's target is also to surpass Federer's total but the real test is, how many more is he going to win after or is he going to lose motivation too. There's no doubt that Federer and Nadal have motivated Nadal to track down their tally but without such a target, would Djokovic have any hunger in the first place?
So it's only a matter of time until Djokovic surpasses Federer's major records eventually, as it is the natural order of things. And this debate really has been only between these two, and not Nadal for reasons outlined above.
Likewise, Federer is the only player to have won 5 or more grand-slam titles in 3 out of 4 grand-slams. This maybe matched by Djokovic eventually, but not yet so far. Federer is also the only player to have won 5 consecutive grand-slams at the same time in two different grand-slams consisting of two different surfaces (US Open and Wimbledon). Federer's overall dominance in three out of 4 grand-slam events has only ever been matched (or surpassed) by Djokovic himself. And as already mentioned, only trounced closely by Djokovic at number of weeks at number 1.
Meanwhile, for all of Nadal's one-sided dominance at Roland Garros and the monopoly that he has had their, his record overall outside of Roland Garros (relative to Federer and Djokovic) is rather abysmal. He has no unique feats or accomplishments to speak of. Yes, he might lead Djokovic in slams head to head but that doesn't tell us much, apart from the fact that Nadal isn't good enough outside of his favorite Roland Garros to meet Djokovic as many times (and to potentially lose as many times) as Djokovic is good enough to meet and lose to Nadal in his favorite grand-slam. So if anything, this actually proves Djokovic is the better player.
Also, only the head to head stats between Djokovic and Nadal are valid and relevant, and not between Djokovic and Federer or between Nadal and Federer due to the significant age difference. So we can ignore those. But the fact that Djokovic and Nadal are the same age but Djokovic has dominated Nadal more so than vice versa and dominated the game overall more so than vice versa, has to be a massive argument for why Djokovic is undeniably the greater and better player than Nadal.
If Nadal stopped winning every other grand-slam events and only continued to win Roland Garros , reaching 20 Roland Garros titles or so and finishing his career with more overall grand-slams than anybody else, then MAYBE an argument could be made that Nadal is the greatest. But not anymore. And in a way, it's good for tennis that a player with the most grand-slams isn't one who has a significantly higher number of one grand-slam than all the others. It's fitting for the greatest to also be the most balanced and well-rounded, which is exactly what Djokovic is and Federer was, compared to Nadal who is more limited as a player.
Further proof that exposes Nadal's lack of a complete game is his abysmal record in indoor tournaments. There are many prestigious indoor tournaments Nadal has never won, further outlining how one-dimensional he is and how deficient he is at adapting his game. Meanwhile, Nadal's biggest rival Djokovic has shown the ability to adapt his natural game to something else in order to win indoor events more consistently while Federer's already most complete-game means he has managed to become the most successful player under such conditions.
At one point, I considered Federer the greatest and that was when he had a target to surpass, which was the 14 grand-slam titles set by Pete Sampras. At the time, that was his biggest target and anything after that, was merely a bonus with no pressure attached. The pressure was only there at surpassing the 14 grand-slams set by Sampras. But not only did he surpass that target, he did so in one of the most dominant fashions ever, dominating 3 of the 4 grand-slam tournaments in a way not seen before. But Djokovic in the last few years has equaled this level of dominance set by Federer, and if he wins his 2nd Roland Garros title this year, he'd have without a doubt even surpassed that level of dominance.
The point here, is that it's much easier to surpass a target than to set one. Just like how Federer's primary mission was to surpass Sampras's grand-slam total, and anything else after would be a bonus because you don't really know how many grand-slams would be enough for other players to not be able to catch up to so you kind of lose motivation after you pass the target, Djokovic's target is also to surpass Federer's total but the real test is, how many more is he going to win after or is he going to lose motivation too. There's no doubt that Federer and Nadal have motivated Nadal to track down their tally but without such a target, would Djokovic have any hunger in the first place?
So it's only a matter of time until Djokovic surpasses Federer's major records eventually, as it is the natural order of things. And this debate really has been only between these two, and not Nadal for reasons outlined above.
