Novak Djokovic - his big clay titles

[RS]

This is a very biased what-if as it is the very best possible hypothetical for Novak while we leave everything for Borg as is. Take Nadal out and Novak has one of the weakest clay competition ever, way below Borg. We assume that, we should be fair and also assume Borg does not burn out and plays the 77 edition in which case he will still have more FOs than Novak. His dominance level, even if you take out Nadal for Novak, was far greater.

10 FO's?

 

[Razer]

Borg is better (relative to his era) because he was more natural on the surface and he was more dominant. Using games won percentage is irrelevant in trying to make your point. Kuerten only once reached 60+ GW% on clay while Djokovic did it 7 times. Are we going to use that to say Djokovic is far better and more natural on clay than Kuerten? Absolutely not.

GW% during an entire Clay Season is an indicator of high peak. If Borg and Nadal have 70%+ level of dominance in some seasons while Djokovic's highest in 63 then it means a lot, the margin of the gap is just too much. Kuerten and Djokovic are in the same ballpark, not much to separate them.

 

[NoleFam]

GW% during an entire Clay Season is an indicator of high peak. If Borg and Nadal have 70%+ level of dominance in some seasons while Djokovic's highest in 63 then it means a lot, the margin of the gap is just too much. Kuerten and Djokovic are in the same ballpark, not much to separate them.

Alejandro Falla had 63.4% GW% in 2006, which was the highest and higher than Nadal. Benjamin Ballaret (who I've never heard of or seen play) had 64.1% in 2007. This stat doesn't take into account sample size, rank of opponents played, or level of tournaments where matches are played which shows why it's mostly meaningless to compare it across eras.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

This is a very biased what-if as it is the very best possible hypothetical for Novak while we leave everything for Borg as is. Take Nadal out and Novak has one of the weakest clay competition ever, way below Borg. We assume that, we should be fair and also assume Borg does not burn out and plays the 77 edition in which case he will still have more FOs than Novak. His dominance level, even if you take out Nadal for Novak, was far greater.

Exactly, you put Borg in Djokovic's place with no Nadal and he also wins RG every year (Well, he basically won it every year in his time except when he lost to Pannata).

 

[NeutralFan]

Exactly, you put Borg in Djokovic's place with no Nadal and he also wins RG every year (Well, he basically won it every year in his time except when he lost to Pannata).

How would Borg who developed his game based on 70s and early 80s will magically transcend into world beater in post 2004 era? Game was slow af in his time. Borg will be lucky to be a top 20 players today ffs. Absolutists are so cringe lol. With a new game player from x era won't be the same player that alone make Hypothetical across era meaningless.

 

[Razer]

Alejandro Falla had 63.4% GW% in 2006, which was the highest and higher than Nadal. Benjamin Ballaret (who I've never heard of or seen play) had 64.1% in 2007. This stat doesn't take into account sample size, rank of opponents played, or level of tournaments where matches are played which shows why it's mostly meaningless to compare it across eras.

Don't make a joke of yourself man, these examples you give are all laughable....

Alejandro Fallo in 2006 never made it past the early rounds, now in those early rounds Nadal, Federer and everyone has top 64-65% type numbers, as you progress to last stages of the tournament the %s drop, so if Fallo had reached the finals of the big tournmanes and won them with 63% then he would be a great clay courter worth being mentioned.

The bottomline is your idol Djokovic is not a GOATy level player on clay since he had 1 french open win on his 34th birthday while Borg had 6 on his 25th birthday, I donno why you even wanna argue.... just accept that there is no comparison between the 2 ....

 

[Razer]

Borg won 32 clay titles at 25
Interestingly Nadal too had 32 clay titles at the same age when Borg won his 32nd title

Lendl had 16 clay titles at that same age
Djokovic had only 7 clay titles at that age

Why is Djokovic so bad when we compare these 4 players and yet his fans wanting him to be compared to Borg ? Aren't you guys ashamed ???

 

[GabeT]

Exactly, you put Borg in Djokovic's place with no Nadal and he also wins RG every year (Well, he basically won it every year in his time except when he lost to Pannata).

this is a different debate.

The point I was making was about relative results

Borg had better results relative to his peers than Novak did to his (we all agree). My point was that Novak faced a once in a life time force (Nadal at clay) and absent that the difference between the two would not have been as big

You, if I read you correctly, are making a different point, one of absolute comparisons. You are saying that if Borg could time travel and play for Novak, and without Nadal around, he would win as much, if not more, than Novak in such a scenario.

Of course, we don't know with any certainty how such a hypothetical would play out. But based on the information we do have, I very much doubt Borg would do as well as Novak. In fact, I doubt he would do well at all.

Borg famously did not deal well with adapting to change. He didn't like it when he lost to Jmac, came back, and pretended to use his old racquet. That did not go well.

We know how well Borg did in the conditions he played in. These included wooden racquets and a much much slower pace of play relative to today. Would he have adapted to modern tennis? We will never really know.

 

[GabeT]

Borg won 32 clay titles at 25
Interestingly Nadal too had 32 clay titles at the same age when Borg won his 32nd title

Lendl had 16 clay titles at that same age
Djokovic had only 7 clay titles at that age

Why is Djokovic so bad when we compare these 4 players and yet his fans wanting him to be compared to Borg ? Aren't you guys ashamed ???

The only titles that matter are RGs, maybe Rome. If Novak had wanted to simply maximize the number of clay titles, he could have played a lot more minor tourneys (500s and 250s), something he did not do.

 

[NoleFam]

Don't make a joke of yourself man, these examples you give are all laughable....

Alejandro Fallo in 2006 never made it past the early rounds, now in those early rounds Nadal, Federer and everyone has top 64-65% type numbers, as you progress to last stages of the tournament the %s drop, so if Fallo had reached the finals of the big tournmanes and won them with 63% then he would be a great clay courter worth being mentioned.

The bottomline is your idol Djokovic is not a GOATy level player on clay since he had 1 french open win on his 34th birthday while Borg had 6 on his 25th birthday, I donno why you even wanna argue.... just accept that there is no comparison between the 2 ....

Everytime your points get crushed, you take it personal. Lol. There is no doubt Borg is better and greater than Djokovic on clay, from my perspective. I never said Djokovic is even close to a GOAT on clay, and who would say that when someone won 14 RGs on his watch. Bottom line is your argument doesn't make much sense because it makes a great clay player like Kuerten look less than when we know he's not and one of the best clay players of all time. So come up with a better stat.

 

[RS]

Kuerten being better is still a argument act. Probably because he supposedly peaked higher.

 

[InsuranceMan]

Kuerten being better is still an argument act. Probably because he supposedly peaked higher.

Kuerten v Zeballos Barcelona 10 match series?

 

[Razer]

The only titles that matter are RGs, maybe Rome. If Novak had wanted to simply maximize the number of clay titles, he could have played a lot more minor tourneys (500s and 250s), something he did not do.

Everything matters when are comparing previous eras with 21st century, the Slams Race/GOAT race being all about Slams is only applicable between the Big 3 for their own comparisons because this era is Slam Centric, but 20th century was no so slam centric, so everything counts if they are involved.

The players of 1970s have actually played more 5 setters than Big 3..... Vilas and Nastase played 200+ 5 BO5 matches on Clay while Djokovic only played 121 BO5 matches on Clay..... Vilas has 49 titles and Nastase has 30 titles too.... So why shouldn't they be taken seriously ???... This Slams only theory is not applicable for previous eras, if you wanna compare them across eras then beat them at their entire body of work.

Vilas cannot claim he is better than Nadal on Clay but he can always brag of he having 49 titles while Nole only have 19, most of those wins were best of 5 too, so they are definitely meant to be taken seriously

Everytime your points get crushed, you take it personal. Lol. There is no doubt Borg is better and greater than Djokovic on clay, from my perspective. I never said Djokovic is even close to a GOAT on clay, and who would say that when someone won 14 RGs on his watch. Bottom line is your argument doesn't make much sense because it makes a great clay player like Kuerten look less than when we know he's not and one of the best clay players of all time. So come up with a better stat.

The GW% stats never lie

Overall on Clay

GW%s of Nadal, Borg, Lendl & Djokovic are 64%, 62%, 59.92% & 58.87%
However QF+ onwards the GAP wides more with Djokovic further left behind in the dust.... It is 60.56%, 59.93%, 57.46% & 54.74%
SF+ and above ... 60+ for both Nadal and Borg, 57% for Lendl and 53% for Djokovic
Finally in the FINALS .... 60-61% for both Borg and Nadal.... 56% for Lendl while 50% for Djokovic

So Novak is forever trailing even before he reaches Nadal, despite this era being a weak clay era yet Djokovic is trailing the numbers since the beginning..... SO do you think this is something which should be ignored ???

I am sorry, Djokovic is just not good enough even without Nadal.....

 

[GabeT]

Everything matters when are comparing previous eras with 21st century, the Slams Race/GOAT race being all about Slams is only applicable between the Big 3 for their own comparisons because this era is Slam Centric, but 20th century was no so slam centric, so everything counts if they are involved.

This works both ways. If you can't compare slam count across time because, in the past, slams did not have the relevance they have today (which I agree with), then you can't compare total titles won either when that clearly wasn't the goal for Novak.

 

[NoleFam]

Everything matters when are comparing previous eras with 21st century, the Slams Race/GOAT race being all about Slams is only applicable between the Big 3 for their own comparisons because this era is Slam Centric, but 20th century was no so slam centric, so everything counts if they are involved.

The players of 1970s have actually played more 5 setters than Big 3..... Vilas and Nastase played 200+ 5 BO5 matches on Clay while Djokovic only played 121 BO5 matches on Clay..... Vilas has 49 titles and Nastase has 30 titles too.... So why shouldn't they be taken seriously ???... This Slams only theory is not applicable for previous eras, if you wanna compare them across eras then beat them at their entire body of work.

Vilas cannot claim he is better than Nadal on Clay but he can always brag of he having 49 titles while Nole only have 19, most of those wins were best of 5 too, so they are definitely meant to be taken seriously



The GW% stats never lie

Overall on Clay

GW%s of Nadal, Borg, Lendl & Djokovic are 64%, 62%, 59.92% & 58.87%
However QF+ onwards the GAP wides more with Djokovic further left behind in the dust.... It is 60.56%, 59.93%, 57.46% & 54.74%
SF+ and above ... 60+ for both Nadal and Borg, 57% for Lendl and 53% for Djokovic
Finally in the FINALS .... 60-61% for both Borg and Nadal.... 56% for Lendl while 50% for Djokovic

So Novak is forever trailing even before he reaches Nadal, despite this era being a weak clay era yet Djokovic is trailing the numbers since the beginning..... SO do you think this is something which should be ignored ???

I am sorry, Djokovic is just not good enough even without Nadal.....

Djokovic is ahead of Lendl in GW% in RG and Monte Carlo. Lendl is only barely ahead by the smallest of margins in Rome. That means he's only ahead because of playing smaller clay tournaments which Djokovic rarely played. This is more proof that this is stat is irrelevant in the context that you're trying to make it.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I've always respected Borg's competition on Clay, the weak era comments are primarily for Grass. S

He's beaten Connors and McEnroe on Wimbledon finals.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Novak faced a once in a life time force (Nadal at clay) and absent that the difference between the two would not have been as big

Novak faced a once-in-a-lifetime force on clay. Borg was a once-in-a-lifetime force on clay.

He dropped even fewer games in '78 than Nadal in 2008.

 

[Razer]

Djokovic is ahead of Lendl in GW% in RG and Monte Carlo. Lendl is only barely ahead by the smallest of margins in Rome. That means he's only ahead because of playing smaller clay tournaments which Djokovic rarely played. This is more proof that this is stat is irrelevant in the context that you're trying to make it.

15 out of Lendl's 28 clay titles had Best of 5 Finals, so definitely they will count too.

On Clay

Lendl has more titles than Djokovic 28>19
Lendl has more titles with BO5 Finals over Djokovic 15>3
Lendl has played more BO5 finals too 21>7
Lendl has 2 years with 65% or more GW while Djokovic has 0

Can't ignore these... they all count.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Novak faced a once-in-a-lifetime force on clay. Borg was a once-in-a-lifetime force on clay.

He dropped even fewer games in '78 than Nadal in 2008.

Yes this is true. This is very true.

We nolefams make false claims and then get told that Nole isn't that awesome.

We should accept he is very awesome but not as awesome as we want him to be on clay. Still marvelous career on clay. But he doesn't compare to Bjorn Borg.

 

[Razer]

This works both ways. If you can't compare slam count across time because, in the past, slams did not have the relevance they have today (which I agree with), then you can't compare total titles won either when that clearly wasn't the goal for Novak.

Novak's 62% (811 out of 1294) matches in his career are on HCs
Vilas's 68% (841 out of 1234) matches in his career are on Clay

So if Novak having 71 titles (highest of all time - tied with Federer) on HC is a big deal then Vilas having 49 titles on Clay (2nd highest in all time just below Nadal) should also be a big deal.

If Djokovic wanted to be called better than Vilas on Clay then he should have centered his career on Clay instead of HCs and won more Clay titles.

So I don't think it is right to called Novak as great as Vilas on Clay, let alone better when the body of work is so much in favor of Vilas. If we do that then it means we are insulting the previous era greats who won all those titles on Clay by playing for years and years Best of 5 Sets.....

 

[GabeT]

Novak faced a once-in-a-lifetime force on clay. Borg was a once-in-a-lifetime force on clay.

He dropped even fewer games in '78 than Nadal in 2008.

Not sure how this counters my argument. You are saying that Borg wasn't stopped by anyone the way Novak was stopped by Nadal. I agree.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Why be an obstacle when you can be the one ?

I don't understand this defeated attitude at all. Making excuses for the failures of the GOAT. He wasn't on this surface. Accept move on

 

[GabeT]

Novak's 62% (811 out of 1294) matches in his career are on HCs
Vilas's 68% (841 out of 1234) matches in his career are on Clay

So if Novak having 71 titles (highest of all time - tied with Federer) on HC is a big deal then Vilas having 49 titles on Clay (2nd highest in all time just below Nadal) should also be a big deal.

If Djokovic wanted to be called better than Vilas on Clay then he should have centered his career on Clay instead of HCs and won more Clay titles.

So I don't think it is right to called Novak as good as Vilas on Clay, let alone better when the body of work is so much in favor of Vilas. If we do that then it means we are insulting the previous era greats who won all those titles on Clay by playing for years and years Best of 5 Sets.....

if you are saying that what is considered important to win and what pro players focus on has changed a lot over time, I fully agree.

Not sure why you would mention Bo5 vs Bo3. It should be clear by now that Novak has no problem with Bo5.

I should note that, using UTS data, Vilas played about 11% of his clay matches against top 10 players. Novak played more than twice as many, about 26%.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Why are you fighting so hard for the second spot anyway. Lol it doesn't belong to Djokovic

 

[Razer]

if you are saying that what is considered important to win and what pro players focus on has changed a lot over time, I fully agree.

Not sure why you would mention Bo5 vs Bo3. It should be clear by now that Novak has no problem with Bo5.

I should note that, using UTS data, Vilas played about 11% of his clay matches against top 10 players. Novak played more than twice as many, about 26%.

What's important changes over time, definitely, but in the same vein we have to accept the title counts too across eras without ignoring them and deeming them unimportant if we are to compare across eras.

Djokovic won so many titles on HCs, so even decades from now if someone is discussing HC then Djokovic (& Federer) should get their due for the 71 titles they won, if priorities change in future then we should not accept someone who has won less than half of the titles than Nole/Fed on HC but being marketed as better on HC because some set of titles then being considered more important, that would be injustice done to Big 3 if we accept the false narratives then. I think 49 titles and 800+ matches played on clay lol is indeed mind boggling.

Yes the top 10 data always shows that current top players play each other more often than players in the past did. It is true but we should not hold that against the old players, it is not like they deliberately had a choice to play top 10 and dodged it, they just played whoever competed and so wins are wins.

 

[Phenomenal]

But that’s the point being debated. Absent a force of nature like Nadal I don’t think we would be saying that Djokovic‘s clay results are not on the same league as Borg’s.

But you can't do that. It doesn't make any sense. Borg is not only won more but he was a dominant figure in his time.
His numbers are similiar to Nadal's without dropping set etc. It's not like Borg won 6 RG in his 20 try. Also nobody deathrone him at RG until he stopped.
Like all the other players it's Djokovic and Federer's fault that they cannot stop him most of the time. They are responsible too.

Borg's peers can say that they couldn't win RG until Borg retired just because they can't win against Borg. Vilas idk how many times he faced but lost all the time to Borg at RG.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Not sure how this counters my argument. You are saying that Borg wasn't stopped by anyone the way Novak was stopped by Nadal. I agree.

Because nobody could stop Borg (except Pannata), just like they couldn't stop Nadal.

 

[GabeT]

What's important changes over time, definitely, but in the same vein we have to accept the title counts too across eras without ignoring them and deeming them unimportant if we are to compare across eras.

Djokovic won so many titles on HCs, so even decades from now if someone is discussing HC then Djokovic (& Federer) should get their due for the 71 titles they won, if priorities change in future then we should not accept someone who has won less than half of the titles than Nole/Fed on HC but being marketed as better on HC because some set of titles then being considered more important, that would be injustice done to Big 3 if we accept the false narratives then. I think 49 titles and 800+ matches played on clay lol is indeed mind boggling.

Yes the top 10 data always shows that current top players play each other more often than players in the past did. It is true but we should not hold that against the old players, it is not like they deliberately had a choice to play top 10 and dodged it, they just played whoever competed and so wins are wins.

Why would we need to accept title counts across eras? That's not what a player like Novak targeted, just like prior generations did not target maximizing slams

 

[GabeT]

Because nobody could stop Borg (except Pannata), just like they couldn't stop Nadal.

Yes, I've already agreed that Borg won much more against his peers on clay than Novak did against his.

 

[GabeT]

But you can't do that. It doesn't make any sense. Borg is not only won more but he was a dominant figure in his time.
His numbers are similiar to Nadal's without dropping set etc. It's not like Borg won 6 RG in his 20 try. Also nobody deathrone him at RG until he stopped.
Like all the other players it's Djokovic and Federer's fault that they cannot stop him most of the time. They are responsible too.

Borg's peers can say that they couldn't win RG until Borg retired just because they can't win against Borg. Vilas idk how many times he faced but lost all the time to Borg at RG.

Yes, that's true. I agree with this. I'd point out that that's part of the problem with all hypotheticals

 

[Razer]

Why would we need to accept title counts across eras? That's not what a player like Novak targeted, just like prior generations did not target maximizing slams

Then have the decency to respect players of previous eras who focussed their careers on Clay. In this era Nadal did that and succeeded in being a GOAT Candidate, so it is not like Novak could not have chosen to do that and win a lot of titles, he did not, so he is unfit to be rated ahead of Vilas on Clay.

Calling a guy with 19 titles on Clay ahead of someone with 49 is lame since they are from different eras, you dont have any proof of Novak being better than Vilas a player in a direct encounter, you only have the title counts to look into and that means Vilas was a bigger heavyweight.

 

[GabeT]

Then have the decency to respect players of previous eras who focussed their careers on Clay. In this era Nadal did that and succeeded in being a GOAT Candidate, so it is not like Novak could not have chosen to do that and win a lot of titles, he did not, so he is unfit to be rated ahead of Vilas on Clay.

Calling a guy with 19 titles on Clay ahead of someone with 49 is lame since they are from different eras, you dont have any proof of Novak being better than Vilas a player in a direct encounter, you only have the title counts to look into and that means Vilas was a bigger heavyweight.

Is there something wrong with you? You are the one that brought up Vilas, not me. I never mentioned him except to respond to you.

 

[Razer]

Is there something wrong with you? You are the one that brought up Vilas, not me. I never mentioned him except to respond to you.

Aren't you battling for Djokovic being even better than Borg on Clay and just second behind Nadal ? You even mentioned that only RGs and Rome matter, nothing else matters on Clay, this is what you said and so I am reminding you that everything matters when we compare across eras. Vilas's 49 titles will come into play vs Djokovic's 19 and we both should know who will win, 49 is bigger than 19. In a comparison across eras where players never faced each other, you only have numbers to compare and Vilas is heavier on the sheer weight of his numbers.

 

[GabeT]

Aren't you battling for Djokovic being even better than Borg on Clay and just second behind Nadal ? You even mentioned that only RGs and Rome matters, nothing else matters on Clay, hence I am reminding you that everything matters when we compare across eras. Vilas's 49 titles will come into play vs Djokovic's 19 and we both should know who will win, 49 is bigger than 19. In a comparison across eras where players never faced each other, you only have numbers to compare and Vilas is heavier on the sheer weight of his numbers.

No. Not at all. Did you even read the thread comments made?

 

[Razer]

No. Not at all. Did you even read the thread comments made?

Lol I read this

The only titles that matter are RGs, maybe Rome. If Novak had wanted to simply maximize the number of clay titles, he could have played a lot more minor tourneys (500s and 250s), something he did not do.

Using IFs and BUTs you are cancelling out of the achievements of the 1970s guys, that's what I am opposing,

 

[GabeT]

Lol I read this



Using IFs and BUTs you are cancelling out of the achievements of the 1970s guys, that's what I am opposing,

how did you read that and conclude that I was arguing that Novak was second after Nadal??

 

[Razer]

how did you read that and conclude that I was arguing that Novak was second after Nadal??

Reading that I understood you want to cancel out the titles of the old guys.

Furthermore lot of post of yours in this entire thread suggest that you wanna hint at Novak being 2nd. If not then why are you going round and round in circles ? Give it a rest, why to battle so hard for Novak here instead of just accepting that Novak is second best clay courter of hsi era but across all time his resume still lacks in titles ? This much would suffice.

 

[GabeT]

Reading that I understood you want to cancel out the titles of the old guys.

Furthermore this post of yours in this entire thread suggest that you wanna hint at Novak being 2nd. If not then why are you going round and round in circles ? Give it a rest, why to battle so hard for Novak here instead of just accepting that Novak is second best clay courter of hsi era but across all time his resume still lacks in titles ? This much would suffice.

Do you have difficulties following arguments? I made it as simple as I could.

 

[Razer]

Do you have difficulties following arguments? I made it as simple as I could.

So you accept that Borg is a superior clay courter than Djokovic ?
Great!!!
In that case I need not waste more time going round and round with you on this if that is the case.

 

[GabeT]

So you accept that Borg is a superior clay courter than Djokovic ?
Great then, I need not waste more time going round and round with you on this if that is the case.

at the very start of this discussion I made clear that Borg’s results in clay relative to his peers are greater than Novak’s. You have problems reading?

If you can’t follow an argument why do you engage in debates?

 

[Razer]

at the very start of this discussion I made clear that Borg’s results in clay relative to his peers are greater than Novak’s.

Then there is nothing to debate on.
Borg > Djokovic forever on clay, there is no debate.
Thanks for clarifying.

 

[GabeT]

Then there is nothing to debate on.
Borg > Djokovic forever on clay, there is no debate.
Thanks for clarifying.

Me (like three hours ago): Yes, A>B

(hours of debate going nowhere)

You: why can’t you recognize that A>B?

me:

 

[NeutralFan]

Borg won 32 clay titles at 25
Interestingly Nadal too had 32 clay titles at the same age when Borg won his 32nd title

Lendl had 16 clay titles at that same age
Djokovic had only 7 clay titles at that age

Why is Djokovic so bad when we compare these 4 players and yet his fans wanting him to be compared to Borg ? Aren't you guys ashamed ???

You're on fire lol, the amount of research you do is very impressive, it requires a great deal of time.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I agree with what you say. My point was a much narrower one.

Razer was saying that Novak’s results in clay are not in the same league as Borg. And that is true. My only counter was to highlight that Nadal’s presence (which is a one off in tennis) changed the clay results dramatically for those that played at the same time. He dominated that surface like no other player has dominated a surface before.

my point wasn’t to say that absent Nadal Novak would have a better record than Borg. That’s a possibility but not the thrust of my argument. My point was that absent Nadal Novak would have likely won more (even if you replace Nadal in this imaginary timeline with another clay ATG, just not as good as him) and so comparisons between Borg‘s and Novak’s results would have made more sense. And, related to that, in such a scenario stats like GW% wouldn’t be relevant.

You are right maybe but also not 100% certain whether Novak would really have won more than six. He is way more vulnerable at RG than at other slams, take 2015 as an example: had he lost against Nadal in the quarters we would likely tend to give him a hypothetical win in the absence of Nadal and would not consider the possibility of him losing to Stan which is what happened in reality.
Anyways: if we take such drastic what-ifs like removing THE number one rival, we can built a lot of impressive scenarios. Take Nadal out and Fed likely wins two CYGS or also a number of FO similar to Borg.
So in conclusion, I agree that if we assume the best possible hypothetical for Novak aka taking the main rival out, then he (and Fed) could have a similar number of FOs as Borg if we leave for him everything as is. Not sure how much this says though.

 

[Razer]

The non existent clay competition is what put Federer and Djokovic in such a position where Nadal removed and quickly their resumes look like they are 6 time champs, it is not their awesomeness because they themselves were not around to stop each other if not for Nadal. Novak was not much of a factor in Fed's peak clay years and Fed was not much of a factor after 2012 too for Novak.... In Borg's era there were at least 2 more guys (Vilas & Orantes) at the same time other than him who were great on Clay, this is not like a fraud non Nadal scenario where the other guy wins a lot in a vacuum if Nadal is removed. Removing Nadal makes no sense at all for anyone, if at all there should have been 1 more guy great on clay in this era, not the otherway round.

 

[NeutralFan]

The non existent clay competition is what put Federer and Djokovic in such a position where Nadal removed and quickly their resumes look like they are 6 time champs, it is not their awesomeness because they themselves were not around to stop each other if not for Nadal. Novak was not much of a factor in Fed's peak clay years and Fed was not much of a factor after 2012 too for Novak.... In Borg's era there were at least 2 more guys (Vilas & Orantes) at the same time other than him who were great on Clay, this is not like a fraud non Nadal scenario where the other guy wins a lot in a vacuum if Nadal is removed. Removing Nadal makes no sense at all for anyone, if at all there should have been 1 more guy great on clay in this era, not the otherway round.

Good point, I think we have a context here. Djokovic's 3 FO and Fed relying on sheer luck to get just one. Is Djokovic 3 times FO player Fed is? The answer is big no. Also, Why Djokovic had to wait for nonexistent years of Nadal (2016, 2023 and 2021) to win his FO if he's three times the player Fed is. Shouldn't a three time FO player win atleast one RG before 2015 or atleast one when he was playing a decent Nadal?Just one? This BOAT , GOAT is just context based and circumstances based. Djokovic inflated his resume on natural surfaces post 27 by 9 slams at FO and Wimbledon .Is he almost 3.5 times Wimbledon player Nadal was ? Or 3 times FP player Fed was?I doubt it

 

[Razer]

Good point, I think we have a context here. Djokovic's 3 FO and Fed relying on sheer luck to get just one. Is Djokovic 3 times FO player Fed is? The answer is big no. Also, Why Djokovic had to wait for nonexistent years of Nadal (2016, 2023 and 2021) to win his FO if he's three times the player Fed is. Shouldn't a three time FO player win atleast one RG before 2015 or atleast one when he was playing a decent Nadal?Just one? This BOAT , GOAT is just context based and circumstances based. Djokovic inflated his resume on natural surfaces post 27 by 9 slams at FO and RG. Is he almost 3.5 times Wimbledon player Nadal was ? Or 3 times FP player Fed was?I doubt it

Djokovic's wimbledon resume should actually show 3-4 wimbledons and Federer's wimbledon resume should show 7 if 1990s gen had an ATG who emerged in 2016/2017 period, this means when the youngest greats of the 1980s gen (Djokovic & Murray) exited their peak in 2016 then in 2017 it should have been some young guys around to take over, not Federer and Nadal who were like fighting in slam finals more than a decade ago. So thats the inflation here. Djokovic wins 2018 wimbledon for sure but 2019 wimbledon should have been won by a hypothetical young ATG which never happened, this young player probably should have won in 2017 too or maybe Federer was too great to be denied? In any case, Novak might be 2 times as good as Nadal on Grass but not 3.5 times, that is absurd.

Nadal's US open resume and Djokovic's too are a bit inflated, the titles they won from 2017 onwards are also in the absence of young ATGs, remember the US Open is the slam where young players make their mark and yet there was none, in Novak's case one can argue that he lost too many finals before in his 20s and so he is being rewarded for it since the competition at US Open was very tough right from late 2000s throughout Djokovic's 20s.

Djokovic's french open resume is definetly inflated, a guy with 1 FO on his 34th birthday (the age 34 is too old) won 2 times of that after that, this kind of a luxury he would not have had in previous eras.

Nadal's AO resume is also inflated, his second AO is fraud.... Federer's AO resume is also inflated since he won most of it in the absence of Djokovic, he can call himself lucky for it....

So in many ways, they have all inflated their resumes. Federer and Djokovic win so much outside clay that their confidence levels are good enough to thwart anyone else from reaching the french open final @NeutralFan @BorgTheGOAT .... If you removed Nadal and Djokovic in the 2010s then even Federer in his mid 30s would give it a shot to somehow maul the field and win FOs.... thats how much of an edge he had over the field. In the old days I guess every specialist on his surface had his mental edge intact, today there is no such edge for the field to put up a fight and on natural surfaces there are no great players of any kind.

 

[NeutralFan]

Djokovic's wimbledon resume should actually show 3-4 wimbledons and Federer's wimbledon resume should show 7 if 1990s gen had an ATG who emerged in 2016/2017 period, this means when the youngest greats of the 1980s gen (Djokovic & Murray) exited their peak in 2016 then in 2017 it should have been some young guys around to take over, not Federer and Nadal who were like fighting in slam finals more than a decade ago. So thats the inflation here. Djokovic wins 2018 wimbledon for sure but 2019 wimbledon should have been won by a hypothetical young ATG which never happened, this young player probably should have won in 2017 too or maybe Federer was too great to be denied? In any case, Novak might be 2 times as good as Nadal on Grass but not 3.5 times, that is absurd.

Nadal's US open resume and Djokovic's too are a bit inflated, the titles they won from 2017 onwards are also in the absence of young ATGs, remember the US Open is the slam where young players make their mark and yet there was none, in Novak's case one can argue that he lost too many finals before in his 20s and so he is being rewarded for it since the competition at US Open was very tough right from late 2000s throughout Djokovic's 20s.

Djokovic's french open resume is definetly inflated, a guy with 1 FO on his 34th birthday (the age 34 is too old) won 2 times of that after that, this kind of a luxury he would not have had in previous eras.

Nadal's AO resume is also inflated, his second AO is fraud.... Federer's AO resume is also inflated since he won most of it in the absence of Djokovic, he can call himself lucky for it....

So in many ways, they have all inflated their resumes. Federer and Djokovic win so much outside clay that their confidence levels are good enough to thwart anyone else from reaching the french open final @NeutralFan @BorgTheGOAT .... If you removed Nadal and Djokovic in the 2010s then even Federer in his mid 30s would give it a shot to somehow maul the field and win FOs.... thats how much of an edge he had over the field. In the old days I guess every specialist on his surface had his mental edge intact, today there is no such edge for the field to put up a fight and on natural surfaces there are no great players of any kind.

Imo Nadal could have inflated his resumes if he had luxury of avoiding AO GOAT at his peak and Wimbledon goat at this peak. Djokovic had luxury at FO and Wimbledon and here he lucked out most. Fed lucked out at AO as you mentioned but not at two slams to the extent Djokovic did.

 

[Razer]

Imo Nadal could have inflated his resumes if he had luxury of avoiding AO GOAT at his peak and Wimbledon goat at this peak. Djokovic had luxury at FO and Wimbledon and here he lucked out most. Fed lucked out at AO as you mentioned but not at two slams to the extent Djokovic did.

We cannot feel sad for Nadal.... He peaked early and at that time Fed was there and later on Djokovic is there to thwart him. It is not like Djokovic is a next gen or anything, he is of Nadal's age and so it is Nadal's duty to first tackle Djokovic and not peak earlier to try and thwart Federer. As a Nadal fan you could feel bad for Nadal for this, however in we look at it neutrally then no sympathy for him either... he himself won a lot in his 30s.

 

[NeutralFan]

We cannot feel sad for Nadal.... He peaked early and at that time Fed was there and later on Djokovic is there to thwart him. It is not like Djokovic is a next gen or anything, he is of Nadal's age and so it is Nadal's duty to first tackle Djokovic and not peak earlier to try and thwart Federer. As a Nadal fan you could feel bad for Nadal for this, however in we look at it neutrally then no sympathy for him either... he himself won a lot in his 30s.

We shouldn't feel sad for anyone since they are 0.000000001% of the luckiest humans in history of mankind. I am just stating Djokovic lucked out at two slams heavily. And don't worry I am not a Nadal fanatic like some insecure Nadal fans here who are out to fight for slightest of issues .