Novak Djokovic is the only man with more career top 10 wins (265) than total career losses (234).

Giocoswitch said:
And yet in the end the h2hs read Fed 2-4 vs Nadal in 06 and Djokovic 2-1 vs Fed at slams in 11. When I say, "unflattering", I mean that it could conceivably have been significantly better if you shifted the margins only slightly. In Djokovic's case that doesn't really apply, since Fed's margin of victory at RG was quite healthy and he won every other big match of note that year when fully fit. If anything Djokovic's results were "flattering" in that way

In any case, the burden should be on the prime, peaky player to clutch up and win these matches, regardless of how close they get to defeat (or victory, in Fed's case). Some losing efforts are obviously more respectable than others but no one could reasonably say it's any substitute for actually winning the match and having that scalp on your resume.
Click to expand...

Federer's win percentage in 05 & 06 was better than Djokovic's in any year, tells us?
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Federer's win percentage in 05 & 06 was better than Djokovic's in any year, tells us?
Click to expand...
Djokovic won out 17 big tournaments out of 22 from 2014 Bercy to 2016 French Open.

Djokovic and Federer both had high peaks, but Nole didn't just have one peak, he had two:

11/22 Slams won from 2011 AO to 2016 RG
12/21 Slams won (and 12/18 he was not banned or DQed) from 2018 WI to 2023 UO
 
Giocoswitch said:
The argument I was making wasn't directly about wider dominance, but yes I agree. I personally wouldn't argue Djokovic's dominance was more impressive than Federer's, I'm just making the point that prime Fed wasted his best chance to completely kill any debates about who had the best year ever while Djokovic was immensely clutch to put himself in that position
Click to expand...
Fair point.
 
Giocoswitch said:
The argument I was making wasn't directly about wider dominance, but yes I agree. I personally wouldn't argue Djokovic's dominance was more impressive than Federer's, I'm just making the point that prime Fed wasted his best chance to completely kill any debates about who had the best year ever while Djokovic was immensely clutch to put himself in that position
Click to expand...
Which year exactly was Djokovic 'immensely clutch' in?
 
Giocoswitch said:
Considering it's supposed to be his primest peakiest year I always thought 2-4 was very unflattering considering the circumstances of Dubai and Rome, even if his opponent was hardly your average top tenner in either case. His complete ownage of the rest of the field is compelling though
Click to expand...

2-4 might be unflattering, but there's nothing unflattering about the Rome match. Pushing Nadal to match point on clay while being a bad match-up is very impressive.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Which year exactly was Djokovic 'immensely clutch' in?
Click to expand...
2011, since I'm sure you'd agree he had quite the holes to dig himself out of in the USO SF with no margin for error. And I don't think it's a stretch to say losing it would automatically disqualify the year from all contention as the best ever, considering a number of people already use RG as a disqualifier.
BauerAlmeida said:
2-4 might be unflattering, but there's nothing unflattering about the Rome match. Pushing Nadal to match point on clay while being a bad match-up is very impressive.
Click to expand...
Read reply #42 in this thread, if you haven't
 
Giocoswitch said:
2011, since I'm sure you'd agree he had quite the holes to dig himself out of in the USO SF with no margin for error.
Click to expand...
Were Djokovic actually 'immensely clutch', he wouldn't have lost a set. It is absolutely not a showing of mythical mental strength to first muck things up all the way to putting yourself in a strongly losing position and then heroically get out of it.
Giocoswitch said:
And I don't think it's a stretch to say losing it would automatically disqualify the year from all contention as the best ever, considering a number of people already use RG as a disqualifier.
Click to expand...
Djokovic's 2011 AO-USO stretch is certainly among the best in history, but his struggles with Federer are exactly why it is not the singular best and never will be.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Djokovic's 2011 AO-USO stretch is certainly among the best in history, but his struggles with Federer are exactly why it is not the singular best and never will be.
Click to expand...
I think any player in history would have struggled with that version of Federer. He was very, very good. He curb stomps current Carlos and Sinner.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Djokovic's 2011 AO-USO stretch is certainly among the best in history, but his struggles with Federer are exactly why it is not the singular best and never will be.
Click to expand...
Did Federer during his peak face anyone, outside of clay, who was as good as his 2011 version? Probably Safin on AO 2005, but he lost that match. As a whole, Fed 2011 is still better than Safin 2005.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Were Djokovic actually 'immensely clutch', he wouldn't have lost a set. It is absolutely not a showing of mythical mental strength to first muck things up all the way to putting yourself in a strongly losing position and then heroically get out of it.
Click to expand...
I accept that "immensely" was the wrong word considering the full context, I just don't accept that Fed deserves more credit for pushing it close than Djokovic does for winning, even knowing their ages. Sorry
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Djokovic's 2011 AO-USO stretch is certainly among the best in history, but his struggles with Federer are exactly why it is not the singular best and never will be.
Click to expand...
For some level-obsessed brains perhaps, but there's no amount of banging my head against the wall that would let me anoint a year of 2-4 against ATG comp as the singular best when a year of 10-1 exists, let alone whatever ridiculous record Mac 84 had. Simply citing Fed's win percentages comparatively knowing full well the context is Djokovic-fan-esque bean counting, at which point you may as well say "2011 can't be gyoat because of the late season injuries" since that would at least be honest.
 
vix said:
Did Federer during his peak face anyone, outside of clay, who was as good as his 2011 version? Probably Safin on AO 2005, but he lost that match. As a whole, Fed 2011 is still better than Safin 2005.
Click to expand...
This line of reasoning inevitably leads to Federer 2011 > Federer 04-07 sort of conclusion, and with that you have confirmed your status as a hopeless Djokovic fanboi.
 
Giocoswitch said:
I accept that "immensely" was the wrong word considering the full context, I just don't accept that Fed deserves more credit for pushing it close than Djokovic does for winning, even knowing their ages. Sorry
Click to expand...
I'd rather you didn't say sorry when you're clearly not sorry, lol. I do think it reflects better on Federer to push peak Djokovic to MP while being clearly past peak at 30 years old, than it does on peak Djokovic to save MP against 30-year-old Federer.
Giocoswitch said:
For some level-obsessed brains perhaps, but there's no amount of banging my head against the wall that would let me anoint a year of 2-4 against ATG comp as the singular best when a year of 10-1 exists, let alone whatever ridiculous record Mac 84 had. Simply citing Fed's win percentages comparatively knowing full well the context is Djokovic-fan-esque bean counting, at which point you may as well say "2011 can't be gyoat because of the late season injuries" since that would at least be honest.
Click to expand...
My point was that criticising peak Federer for losing compared to Djokovic is illogical when Djokovic actually lost more than Federer at his own peak.
 
NachoGPT said:
Very fair. I actually think Federer at his best is the greatest a player has ever been. Djokovic just has a better base level and more mental resilience.
Click to expand...
What does 'base level' denote in this case? Djokovic has clearly been more consistent hence better in masters tournaments (as well as the Olympix) both prime to prime and overall career to career, that is his advantage. When it comes to the biggest tournaments i.e. slams+yec, Joe's advantage is longevity, especially on clay (RG), but I'm not particularly moved by Djokovic's 40th best slam run being better than Federer's given that I think Federer's best 5/10/20/30 runs were overall better than Djokovic's.
As for 'mental resilience', I don't buy it considering how many majors Djokovic left on the table in his prime years. Of course, it became easier to appear mentally strong later in his career facing incompetents.
 
he is also the only man to:

Have an 85%+ winning percentage at every Slam

Have an 80%+ winning percentage on every surface

Have a 70%+ winning percentage at every big tournament
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
I'd rather you didn't say sorry when you're clearly not sorry, lol.
Click to expand...
Sorry for saying sorry then (to be fair it was pretty catty, mb)
AnOctorokForDinner said:
I do think it reflects better on Federer to push peak Djokovic to MP while being clearly past peak at 30 years old, than it does on peak Djokovic to save MP against 30-year-old Federer.
Click to expand...
Djokovic was obviously favourite from the outset so it's not as if I don't get the logic, I'm just not inclined to see it as some massive discredit like you people do. In any knockout competition you're primarily judged on your ability to survive and win, not all-around performance. Say Player A dominates their entire side of the bracket at a slam while Player B scrapes through unconvincingly, and they meet in the final where Player B again scrapes their way to a win. Will it be widely remembered more as a great level from Player A, or a great title for Player B? Methinks the latter, because ultimately everyone plays to win the game. If it doesn't meet your subjective criteria for a greatest year ever because of the manner of those wins that's your opinion. Again, for me 2-4 and 10-1 are more significant to compare, but everyone has their own metrics.
AnOctorokForDinner said:
My point was that criticising peak Federer for losing compared to Djokovic is illogical when Djokovic actually lost more than Federer at his own peak.
Click to expand...
All era talk aside Federer was obviously the more consistent winner in his peak years, so that's fair. My point was more about 2011 specifically and gyoat comparisons, since we know the context of the lower win percentage.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
This line of reasoning inevitably leads to Federer 2011 > Federer 04-07 sort of conclusion, and with that you have confirmed your status as a hopeless Djokovic fanboi.
Click to expand...
What? How so? I never said he was better, just that in 2011 he was better than anyone he faced during his peak, excluding Nadal on clay. How is that hard to understand? Actually with that you confirmed your status as a hopeless Djokovic hater. I mean, doesn't your line of reasoning invalidate Federer's peak? Since he was struggling during his peak against Nadal?
 
These type of stats only prove that how great novak has been in his career.
Beating top 10 player more than his career losses is amazing.
Interested to know what is the record for ROGER and RAFA.
ANY record that Novak makes must be judged against his greatest rivals and then only we can compare.
Still a great acheivement.
 
gamelovergold said:
These type of stats only prove that how great novak has been in his career.
Beating top 10 player more than his career losses is amazing.
Interested to know what is the record for ROGER and RAFA.
ANY record that Novak makes must be judged against his greatest rivals and then only we can compare.
Still a great acheivement.
Click to expand...
I wrote it in the OP
 
Grafil Injection said:
We definitely can't mention Steffi's 208/106 = 1.96
Click to expand...
It’s a completely different league.

The Los Angeles Lakers are the best team of all time.
No, no, no Panathinaikos of the Greek league is actually the best basketball team ever based on the percentage of championships they’ve won vs the field.

Sounds like a pretty stupid argument to me. It’s a different league entirely. One can’t be compared to the other.
 
NoleFam said:
Nadal had 14 more top 10 wins than Djokovic at the same age (the age Alcaraz is now) and Djokovic now has almost 80 more and counting. It's not really how you start but how you finish, and if you can keep it up year after year. So Carlos is a loonnnnng way away when you step back and take a look at the big picture, and he has to do this well into his 30s to catch Djokovic.
Click to expand...
If Carlos goes on to win 17 more top 10 wins and then averages 17 more for every season he will surpass Novaks number by age 35 , likely he will at this rate
 
vix said:
What? How so? I never said he was better, just that in 2011 he was better than anyone he faced during his peak, excluding Nadal on clay. How is that hard to understand? Actually with that you confirmed your status as a hopeless Djokovic hater. I mean, doesn't your line of reasoning invalidate Federer's peak? Since he was struggling during his peak against Nadal?
Click to expand...
You said Federer 2011 > Safin 2005 and Federer 2005 lost to Safin 2005 so Federer 2011 > Federer 2005 follows necessarily from that.

Peak Federer only had bad H2H against Nadal on BO5 clay, but everyone did.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
You said Federer 2011 > Safin 2005 and Federer 2005 lost to Safin 2005 so Federer 2011 > Federer 2005 follows necessarily from that.

Peak Federer only had bad H2H against Nadal on BO5 clay, but everyone did.
Click to expand...
I said Federer 2011 was better than Safin 2005, overall. Only one tournament 2005 AO Safin is better than Federer 2011 in any Grand Slam. But you are drawing a lot from single matches, and 2011 Fed from RG SF and USO SF would be tough even for his peak versions, heck you would struggle to find better performances from him on clay than 2011 RG SF. AO 2005 was Safin's last title, after that the dude was struggling to get match wins, let alone titles.
Peak Federer struggled against Nadal everywhere, clay, HC and grass. What about Cañas, Murray?
All I'm saying is, you can find holes in any resume if you search long enough, and counting out Novak's 2011 just because he struggled against FEDERER in two grand slams is insane to me. I mean, lets add some context, shall we? In 2011, everytime Novak stepped on the court to play against Federer and Nadal, he had to play against basically the whole crowd and those dudes had immense aura and confidence, they were at the top of the world, and for a party crasher like Novak to do what he did at the time was enormous. That's why I think it's more impressive than 2010 Nadal or 2005~07 Fed.
 
Last edited:
vix said:
I said Federer 2011 was better than Safin 2005, overall. Only one tournament, 2005 AO Safin is better than Federer 2011 in any Grand Slam. But you are drawing a lot from single matches, and 2011 Fed from RG SF and USO SF would be tough even for his peak versions, heck you would struggle to find better performances from him on clay than 2011 RG SF. AO 2005 was Safin's last title, after that the dude was struggling to get match wins, let alone titles.
Peak Federer struggled against Nadal everywhere, clay, HC and grass. What about Cañas, Murray?
All I'm saying is, you can find holes in any resume if you search long enough, and counting out Novak's 2011 just because he struggled against FEDERER in two grand slams is insane to me. I mean, lets add some context, shall we? In 2011, everytime Novak stepped on the court to play against Federer and Nadal, he had to play against basically the whole crowd and those dudes had immense aura and confidence, they were at the top of the world, and for a party crasher like Novak to do what he did at the time was enormous. That's why I think it's more impressive than 2010 Nadal or 2005~07 Fed.
Click to expand...

I said Djokovic's 2011 AO-USO stretch is certainly among the best in history, but his struggles with Federer are exactly why it is not the singular best and never will be, and now you say I'm 'counting Novak's 2011 out'? Based on what, not worshipping it as the highest level of tennis in all of human history? I don't claim any of Federer's peak years as the singular best either, though overall the four-year stretch from '04 to '07 is the best for sustained peak, but individual seasons are debatable, and specific tournament runs are a lot more debatable than that still. And therein lies the rub, however dominant Djokovic's 2011 was up to the USO, I'm skeptical that his level at any specific tournament other than perhaps AO was actually the best ever, which leads me to give it a less cosmically high rating than it usually gets.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
I said Djokovic's 2011 AO-USO stretch is certainly among the best in history, but his struggles with Federer are exactly why it is not the singular best and never will be, and now you say I'm 'counting Novak's 2011 out'? Based on what, not worshipping it as the highest level of tennis in all of human history? I don't claim any of Federer's peak years as the singular best either, though overall the four-year stretch from '04 to '07 is the best for sustained peak, but individual seasons are debatable, and specific tournament runs are a lot more debatable than that still. And therein lies the rub, however dominant Djokovic's 2011 was up to the USO, I'm skeptical that his level at any specific tournament other than perhaps AO was actually the best ever, which leads me to give it a less cosmically high rating than it usually gets.
Click to expand...
I mean, it's just the way you phrased "but his struggles with Federer are exactly why it is not the singular best and never will be". In my opinion any season from Federer's peak, Nadal's 2010 and Novak's 2011 and 2015 can be considered the best, but you can find "flaws" in basically all of them, be it subjective or objective.
 
top10 wins / total losses ratio (since 2000):

2015 Djokovic 5.17
2006 Federer 3.80
2005 Federer 3.75
2011 Djokovic 3.50 / 2026 Sinner 3.50

2026 Sinner is at the same rate as 2011 Djokovic and higher than 2013 Nadal, but still far from 2015 Djokovic.

1984 McEnroe stands at an incredible 8.00 (24 wins over top10 / 3 total losses).
 
junkieballer said:
Novak Djokovic is the only man with more career top 10 wins (265) than total career losses (234).

wins over top10s / career losses (only players with 100+ wins over top10s):

Djokovic 265 / 234 = ratio 1.13
Borg 117 / 138 =0.85
Nadal 186 / 227 = 0.82
Federer 223 / 275 = 0.81
Lendl 164 / 242 = 0.68
McEnroe 128 / 198 = 0.65
Becker 121 / 214 = 0.57
Sampras 124 / 222 = 0.56
Connors 147 / 285 = 0.52
Murray 105 / 261 = 0.40
Agassi 109 / 274 = 0.40

In case anyone wanted to know:

Alcaraz 55 / 65 = ratio 0.85
Sinner 60 / 87 = ratio 0.69
Click to expand...
The most impressive of the stats was the jump from .85 to 1.13.
 
junkieballer said:
Novak Djokovic is the only man with more career top 10 wins (265) than total career losses (234).

wins over top10s / career losses (only players with 100+ wins over top10s):

Djokovic 265 / 234 = ratio 1.13
Borg 117 / 138 =0.85
Nadal 186 / 227 = 0.82
Federer 223 / 275 = 0.81
Lendl 164 / 242 = 0.68
McEnroe 128 / 198 = 0.65
Becker 121 / 214 = 0.57
Sampras 124 / 222 = 0.56
Connors 147 / 285 = 0.52
Murray 105 / 261 = 0.40
Agassi 109 / 274 = 0.40

In case anyone wanted to know:

Alcaraz 55 / 65 = ratio 0.85
Sinner 60 / 87 = ratio 0.69
Click to expand...
Djokovic has more T10 wins (265) than anyone had T10 matches, save Federer (386) and Nadal (290).

I don't know how Djokovic had so many T10 victories and survived.
 
SonnyT said:
Djokovic has more T10 wins (265) than anyone had T10 matches, save Federer (386) and Nadal (290).

I don't know how Djokovic had so many T10 victories and survived.
Click to expand...
Djokovic has highest win percentage ever despite playing the highest percentage of top10s and highest number of top10s

J

Thread 'Career win percentage + percentage of matches played against top10s'

Career win percentage and percentage of matches played against top10s. The more top10s you play the harder it is to have a high win percentage.

1) Djokovic 83.4% matches won + 27.7% of matches played against top10 = 111.1
2) Nadal 82.6 + 22.3 = 104.9
3) Federer 81.9 + 22.7 = 104.6
4) Borg 82.5 + 21.3 = 103.8
5) Alcaraz 81.5 + 21.9 = 103.4
6) Sinner 78.9 + 23.5 = 102.4
7) McEnroe 81.6 + 20.7 = 102.3
8) Lendl 81.5 + 19.6 = 101.1
9) Connors 81.7 + 17.6 = 99.3
10) Sampras 77.4 + 19.8 = 97.2

Djokovic head and shoulders above everyone else, there's more difference between #1 and #2...
  • Like
 
I should save this thread, and when someone tries to compare Federer/Nadal/Alcaraz/Sinner with Djokovic, I'll throw this at them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top