"People don't like Djokovic because he beats their favourite player all the time" - Mardy Fish

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
That's "one" reason why some don't like him.

The main reason is because he plays BORING tennis. He does not give anything to a normal fan to get excited about. It's all about sucking the life out of an opponent without going for any sort of winners. The "Sinners" or "Alcarazes" or "Shapovalovs" or "Tsitsipases" attact more fans because of their exciting brand of fearless and explosive tennis. Medvedev is another boring player or will become one when he's on top.

Zv is slightly more exciting than Med because he has weapons. Another example is FAA. He's another boring player. People don't like robotic play. That's the truth.
No one sucked the lives out of tennis players more than Borg, and he was idolized. This goes WAY beyond style of play.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Age was not the reason he lost that match. He had two match points on his serve so his return was a non-factor at that point in the match.
I've always thought this argument was a bit weird. Whether he was close to winning or not doesn't actually say how well he played overall. Age wasn't the reason Fed blew those match points and lost the match, but age was one of the reasons he walked into the match and played at the level he did. Fed was not at his best in that match: he was quite far from it, and so was Djokovic for that matter. Between the two, Fed's serve was literally the only genuinely good shot in that match.

Fed's age is a good explanation for why he wasn't able to bring the level of 2017, let alone 2012 or 2009 or 2008, and let alone his 2003-2006 grass forms. Djokovic's (not quite as old but still old) age also partly explains why he didn't put in a comprehensive performance like in 2011 or 2015. It's not the only explanation because form does fluctuate no matter how old you are (Djokovic, for example, played an excellent AO in 2019 but stank up the court in the Sunshine Double for other reasons such as not prioritizing Masters all that much), but it explains some very clear trends in both players' levels over the years.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Not just action movie. One of the best movies ever period. But unfortunately the sequel was utter garbage.
Yeah, all the sequels were pretty bad. Die Hard is an excellent movie, but let's not get carried away here. Here are 6 action movies better than Die Hard from the 1980s:

Aliens
The Killer
Mad Max 2 (aka The Road Warrior)
Project A, Part II
Raiders of the Lost Ark
The Terminator
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
I've always thought this argument was a bit weird. Whether he was close to winning or not doesn't actually say how well he played overall. Age wasn't the reason Fed blew those match points and lost the match, but age was one of the reasons he walked into the match and played at the level he did. Fed was not at his best in that match: he was quite far from it, and so was Djokovic for that matter. Between the two, Fed's serve was literally the only genuinely good shot in that match.

Fed's age is a good explanation for why he wasn't able to bring the level of 2017, let alone 2012 or 2009 or 2008, and let alone his 2003-2006 grass forms. Djokovic's (not quite as old but still old) age also partly explains why he didn't put in a comprehensive performance like in 2011 or 2015. It's not the only explanation because form does fluctuate no matter how old you are (Djokovic, for example, played an excellent AO in 2019 but stank up the court in the Sunshine Double for other reasons such as not prioritizing Masters all that much), but it explains some very clear trends in both players' levels over the years.
Federer wasn't at his best in that match but he played better than Djokovic did. So it was really Djokovic who was really far off it imo. I thought Federer played great, but obviously not his best performance and I didn't think his serve was the only good shot.

The point I'm trying to make is Federer outplayed both Djokovic and Nadal that tournament regardless of age or regardless of what form they would have played if they were x amount of years younger. He had that match and that title but he did not close it out. That's the reason, not because he was too old to do it.
 

mwym

Semi-Pro
'Beats'? He does not only 'beats'. There is invisible, abstract part to it. And it makes all the difference.

It is not the fact that he beats 2 GOATS for 10+ years til he cripled their minds. It is not that he created his own weak era by damaging minds left and right. Roddick's tweet about soul is somewhat close but still a miss. It is about a opposing mind and how to damage it until it regrets for ever confronting you.

Djokovic mindfvcks on purpose. With intent to leave a long term trauma, and at times 'scarves for life'.

So, their injuries are not simply physical, but physical ones are good PR cover for mental ones. And he damages any mind asking to be damaged - opponents, fanbases, crowds, establishment, parasites, anything with human (like) mind naive enough to confront him without a grasp of what he does.

No one can like a person who aims to traumatize/damage any mind on purpose. THAT is the real reason why Djokovic cannot be liked. And that is what makes him unique. No one ever witnessed anything similar in history of sport. Hence, the surprise which he used and which helped him surpass 2 GOATS and achieve the absolutely impossible. If he simply played the way all the others do it - let the better player on a day win - again and again, he would not have make it.

But, please, by all means, do enjoy your own explanations about it. Like, any player being able to forget the loss the way Djokovic does to his opponents and then play against him again. No child can do that. Or believe that Djokovic needs love. Do not act silly. He does not need love. He hurt minds. There is no love involved in that endevour on either end of it, trust me if you do not get it.

it has zero relevance now. Cause he has already reached his goal. Now it is about what will be the cherry on top, CYGS or something else.

(a sort of) TL;DR
Djokovic mindfvcks. If you dislike him - you have been yet another (collateral) victim. Cause, you know, there are 2 OTHER options - you can like the way he damages minds of all or you can be indifferent. Simple.

note: a victim has to be childishly narcissistic for this strategy to work. He cannot hurt adult mature minds who can clearly recognize what he is doing and simply laugh at it. There were/are just no / not enough adults involved to laugh at him and stop him. And that is what he exploited / cashed in. Brilliant. And dead simple.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Age was not the reason he lost that match. He had two match points on his serve so his return was a non-factor at that point in the match.
Sometimes when we are old, our hand shake on some occasions, we get restless, this would not be the case if we were younger, we have more time to react as well when we are young, some extra fractions of a second we have in our reflexes, plus we are also faster while moving and hitting shots on the run, if you are half a second earlier to a certain point on the court it makes a difference, you can run around your backhand and take the ball on your forehand if you are faster, isn't it ???.... Age matters everywhere in every single match.

I and all the Fed fans like @TMF and many others who always consider Fed the GOAT we believe that if the ages were same of Fed and Novak then Novak's stronger return and his mental toughness (he is mentally tougher than other 2, nobody denies this) would not be a factor and Federer would pull it off vs Novak everywhere except the AO, this is our gut feeling but we cannot prove it. Things are what they are, FED is older and ALWAYS at a disadvantage, what looks like choking is actually induced by the age gap, he can choke once maybe, not so many times if the ages were same.

Nadal is the only person in history vs whose game Fed had some disadvantage, that too was because of the smaller racquet and age gap induced footspeed difference which which makes the backhand look weaker than it is :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMF

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
Fed and Nadal have nothing to do with why I don't care for Djokovic. I glom onto players primarily because of the way they play. I like a stroke of theirs, or I like their playing style. There's some technical aspect that I am trying to emulate . . .

This has allowed me to be a fan of all sorts of players from all sorts of countries. Nationality has nothing to do with whom I root for. I've liked quiet players, players with attitudes, baseliners, serve and volleyers, Germans, Russians . . .

Quite simply, I don't like how Djokovic plays. He's turned the sport I love into a backboard contest, a war of attrition. It's like an endless game of pong. And I think tennis is more than that. It used to be. I like artistry. I like an all-court game. I like net play. I like beautiful strokes. I don't want four and five hour marathons, and 20-short rally after 20-shot rally. I don't want a tour of players who all play the exact same way, from way beyond the baseline, on perfectly bouncing courts, that give them plenty of time to keep a rally going forever.

Okay, so he howls like a banshee sometimes, and he likes tearing off his clothes. And yes, maybe that stuff is irksome. But it's not why I don't like him as a player. I'm sure he's a sweet guy. I'm sure he honors his father and mother and he helps little old ladies cross the street. In my view, if he wins this week, he's the GOAT. He might be already. It's a toss-up and he's slowly inching ahead every year. Mad respect to him. But I don't have to like him.
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
By the way, In that 2019 Wimbledon match I never believed Federer could win it.

Not even during the match.
I don't care what the stats said in the end, Fed was serving excellently but throughout the match I felt Novak could engage Fed in a rally and whenever there was a rally Novak came out winning, that mattered, the tie breaks too clearly told us that Fed wasn't gonna win it.

It was a bad feeling which came true in the most cruel ways in the end.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Sometimes when we are old, our hand shake on some occasions, we get restless, this would not be the case if we were younger, we have more time to react as well when we are young, some extra fractions of a second we have in our reflexes, plus we are also faster while moving and hitting shots on the run, if you are half a second earlier to a certain point on the court it makes a difference, you can run around your backhand and take the ball on your forehand if you are faster, isn't it ???.... Age matters everywhere in every single match.

I and all the Fed fans like @TMF and many others who always consider Fed the GOAT we believe that if the ages were same of Fed and Novak then Novak's stronger return and his mental toughness (he is mentally tougher than other 2, nobody denies this) would not be a factor and Federer would pull it off vs Novak everywhere except the AO, this is our gut feeling but we cannot prove it. Things are what they are, FED is older and ALWAYS at a disadvantage, what looks like choking is actually induced by the age gap, he can choke once maybe, not so many times if the ages were same.

Nadal is the only person in history vs whose game Fed had some disadvantage, that too was because of the smaller racquet and age gap induced footspeed difference which which makes the backhand look weaker than it is :D
I disagree that if he were younger that wouldn't be a factor because he lost too many close matches at different points in his career. This didn't start happening once he turned 32.
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Nadal WAS indeed. Heck even Andy Murray had a better season prior to ATP Finals.
Now the question is the person who ended Federer's dominance actually ruined the party, alguin called Rafael Nadal:p
Edit : And 2013 is another perfect illustration of what would have happened, if Rafa didn't step in. That would be another 2011ish season for Novak;)
My friend this is where you are now on a different path of conversation to me. ;)


I am talking about Federer AND Nadal together as Fedal, dominating as a duo, with the point being, even with a near 30 year old Federer as part of that duo, no one other than Djokovic was going to stop them, as 2017, a year when both Federer and Nadal are significantly older still managed to own the tour as a duo and split the slams between them like it was 2005-2010 all over again.

Rafa alone didn't step in, in 2013....he needed Murray's help at Wimbledon because Rafa was a non factor on the grass with a 1st round loss, otherwise Djokovic would have still have had a two slam season and would have been world number one. :)

Federer's party was only a year, 2004. Fedal though was 2005-2010....then Djokovic turned that story upside down.
 

Sunny014

Legend
I disagree that if he were younger that wouldn't be factor because he lost too many close matches at different points in his career. This didn't start happening once he turned 32.
He never lost on matchpoint in slams except to Safin .... until 2010

Thats why I said, once is possible, not again and again, matches would never be that close in Fed's peak.

Stretching Federer to 5 sets in his peak was in itself a very tough task and he mostly delivered swift death to his opponents.

I don't seen Novak stretching Peak Federer to 5 sets at wimbledon/USO.

Nadal can, Novak cannot.

At AO Novak can and maybe he will win, at FO Novak can and it would be 50-50, at Grass and Arthur Ashe, no chance.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
I disagree that if he were younger that wouldn't be a factor because he lost too many close matches at different points in his career. This didn't start happening once he turned 32.
But prime/peak Federer was in 2004-2009. He dominated the sport like no other player in the history of tennis. Like every athlete, they all have to decline and 32 a Federer was not even close to 2004-2009
 

Sunny014

Legend
Nadal beat Peak Fed at wimbledon because he had the supreme footspeed to chase Fed's backhand on super slow Grass to exploit the 1 chink in his armory (plus law of averages also helped and losing FO also helped along with mono, too many factors)

Novak doesn't have such a game to do it, his stronger returns work well with a declined Fed, not vs Peak Fed, match would not go 5 sets

It would be Swift Death :p

 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
He never lost on matchpoint in slams except to Safin .... until 2010

Thats why I said, once is possible, not again and again, matches would never be that close in Fed's peak.

Stretching Federer to 5 sets in his peak was in itself a very tough task and he mostly delivered swift death to his opponents.

I don't seen Novak stretching Peak Federer to 5 sets at wimbledon/USO.

Nadal can, Novak cannot.

At AO Novak can and maybe he will win, at FO Novak can and it would be 50-50, at Grass and Arthur Ashe, no chance.
He actually did in 2002 AO as well, and lost 24 matches in his career after holding match point which is a lot.

If you dont think peak Djokovic can stretch Federer to 5 sets at the USO and slow, older Agassi can then there's not much else to discuss on this subject.
 

Sunny014

Legend
He actually did in 2002 AO as well, and lost 24 matches in his career after holding match which is a lot.

If you dont think peak Djokovic can stretch Federer to 5 sets at the USO and slow, older Agassi can then there's not much else to discuss on this subject.
In 2002 AO it was an imposter, not Roger.

Real Federer arrived at the TMC 2003 when Agassi found Rodgi too hot to handle.
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
He actually did in 2002 AO as well, and lost 24 matches in his career after holding match which is a lot.

If you dont think peak Djokovic can stretch Federer to 5 sets at the USO and slow, older Agassi can then there's not much else to discuss on this subject.
Stretch is one thing. But Fed would win, on grass as well. Djoker only beat Fed on grass after Fed was considered old by tennis standards.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
But prime/peak Federer was in 2004-2009. He dominated the sport like no other player in the history of tennis. Like every athlete, they all have to decline and 32 a Federer was not even close to 2004-2009
Yes he declined after that but he still lost 6 close five setters that were relatively big matches in that timeframe that I can think of.
 

Sunny014

Legend
He actually did in 2002 AO as well, and lost 24 matches in his career after holding match which is a lot.

If you dont think peak Djokovic can stretch Federer to 5 sets at the USO and slow, older Agassi can then there's not much else to discuss on this subject.
Agassi of 2004 was not that slow, he was a beast even in 2004 and that match of his was one of his matches of his life at the Arthur Ashe, plus the USO was very fast in the early 00s, conditions were like Cincinnati/Shanghai, the courts have slowed down a lot from 2010 onwards, maybe tournament organizers wanted it to favor Nadal by increasing bounce. Novak won't be able to take Fed to 5 sets there because faster conditions favor Roger more, even if he does I am sure Federer will 100% win, it would be a 2 sets up to 1 set down for Fed, I don't see Novak rising from that....
 

Sunny014

Legend
You know what is funny, how Djoker fans call Agassi old, but not Fed, even though Fed tied Djoker at WC when he was older than Agassi.
Agassi was a beast, everyone knows it.

I've always said it, bring Pete-Agassi of Wimbledon 1999 and put them on 2008 final where Fedal played, Sampras isn't coming out as a winner, it will be Agassi beating Pete there like Nadal pulled a number on Fed, but we have Nadal fans and Nole fans pointing out that Fed lost on grass :D as if Nadal or Novak are better grass courters, this same guys call Agassi old .... they don't realize that Agassi hasn't won 8 slams for nothing, he was a beast in 2004 in both the HC slams ....... a force of nature.... even in 2005 USO he was taking the ball so early, has Novak ever read the opponent's game so quick? I doubt, hehe
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Agassi of 2004 was not that slow, he was a beast even in 2004 and that match of his was one of his matches of his life at the Arthur Ashe, plus the USO was very fast in the early 00s, conditions were like Cincinnati/Shanghai, the courts have slowed down a lot from 2010 onwards, maybe tournament organizers wanted it to favor Nadal by increasing bounce. Novak won't be able to take Fed to 5 sets there because faster conditions favor Roger more, even if he does I am sure Federer will 100% win, it would be a 2 sets up to 1 set down for Fed, I don't see Novak rising from that....
Agassi had slowed down considerably after 2003 AO. Also, let's not overrate that 2004 match. The wind wreaked havoc for a large portion of the match and kept it from being the best quality. Agassi was a hitter at 34 and 35 and he was such a great striker that he could cause anybody in the world problems if they faced him and could not keep the ball out of his strike zone. Djokovic in 2007 held multiple set points in the 1st two sets and he was a 1st time finalist. Good luck with your nostalgic theory.
 

Kralingen

Hall of Fame
Djokovic in 2007 held multiple set points in the 1st two sets and he was a 1st time finalist. Good luck with your nostalgic theory.
Yeah let's be honest the peak to peak stuff is all bollocks really. I do think Fed is the better USO player but acting like a peak match between the two would be an easy win for either is so stupid it borders on hilarity.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Agassi was a beast, everyone knows it.

I've always said it, bring Pete-Agassi of Wimbledon 1999 and put them on 2008 final where Fedal played, Sampras isn't coming out as a winner, it will be Agassi beating Pete there like Nadal pulled a number on Fed, but we have Nadal fans and Nole fans pointing out that Fed lost on grass :D as if Nadal or Novak are better grass courters, this same guys call Agassi old .... they don't realize that Agassi hasn't won 8 slams for nothing, he was a beast in 2004 in both the HC slams ....... a force of nature.... even in 2005 USO he was taking the ball so early, has Novak ever read the opponent's game so quick? I doubt, hehe
No way in hell. Put them on that court and Pete still wins. Why? Because he's still the better athlete and Agassi is nowhere near the athlete that Nadal is. Agassi doesn't have a chance of beating Pete on grass if he serves like that and is hitting his forehand like that, even if it's slowed down a bit.
 

tex123

Professional
No one sucked the lives out of tennis players more than Borg, and he was idolized. This goes WAY beyond style of play.
I wasn't saying style of play was the only reason but it is a big contributing factor. Personality is another. Borg had plenty of that. And he won French + Wimbledon when it was considered almost impossible.

Take the example of Alcaraz. I wouldn't call him good looking and speaks in broken English. He's getting support purely on his style of play and the fact that he's only 18.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Agassi had slowed down considerably after 2003 AO. Also, let's not overrate that 2004 match. The wind wreaked havoc for a large portion of the match and kept it from being the best quality. Agassi was a hitter at 34 and 35 and he was such a great striker that he could cause anybody in the world problems if they faced him and could not keep the ball out of his strike zone. Djokovic in 2007 held multiple set points in the 1st two sets and he was a 1st time finalist. Good luck with your nostalgic theory.
Bro, everything is gut feeling, there is no way to prove anything.

I am looking at Novak's track record at the USO which is really bad, he has lot to everyone there, multiple times to some guys, those conditions don't favor him. Maybe he can stretch Fed to 5 sets but he isn't winning it in any scenario, Novak would find Fed that tough to beat at the USO as Nadal finds Novak to beat at AO. The track record speaks for itself.

Novak's track record at AO is immaculate, so people know he will win in any era, the guy won his 1st slam in 08 there, thats because he loves the plexi, same cannot be said for the deco turf....
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
The most ridiculous claim about Nadal not being a rival for Djokovic is that they have played each other more times than any other two players in the Open Era and yet they are not rivals? Hilarious.
Nadal has many rivals. But the main one, and the one that will go down in history just like Mac/Borg, has always been Fed. Doesn't matter that he played Djoko more often.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
No way in hell. Put them on that court and Pete still wins. Why? Because he's still the better athlete and Agassi is nowhere near the athlete that Nadal is. Agassi doesn't have a chance of beating Petw on grass if he servea like that and is hitting his forehand like that, even if it's slowed down a bit.
plus, we don't have to worry about racket technology here since both guys are 90's players
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah let's be honest the peak to peak stuff is all bollocks really. I do think Fed is the better USO player but acting like a peak match between the two would be an easy win for either is so stupid it borders on hilarity.
Absolutely.
 

Sunny014

Legend
No way in hell. Put them on that court and Pete still wins. Why? Because he's still the better athlete and Agassi is nowhere near the athlete that Nadal is. Agassi doesn't have a chance of beating Petw on grass if he servea like that and is hitting his forehand like that, even if it's slowed down a bit.
Give Agassi the modern day racquets, put them on the high bouncing Grass

Agassi will take him out.

Pete's serve advantage nullified, Agassi's stronger returns will prevail.

Who said Agassi was inferior ? How did Pete never solve the AO riddle vs Agassi if Agassi was inferior ??? |

Dude, Agassi was a worthy peer of Pete in the 90s, he was less focused on Tennis in the 90s and the low bounce conditions did not favor, remove that and he is a force :eek: Inferior athlete??? lol ....
 

Sunny014

Legend
Novak throughout his life has been clueless at Cincinnati & Shanghai vs Fed, so now we are expecting Novak to sneak wins in 5 sets vs Peak Fed on the old USO?


:laughing:
 

Grablidor

New User
I see this as flawed reasoning. I’m a huge fed fan who doesn’t hate Nadal and was a Novack fan for a good while. While his game isn’t flashy I wouldn’t say it’s boring. I would equate it to appreciating offensive and defensive line play on football or watching Princeton play in the NCAA tournament. My most rational answer as to why he isn’t liked or loved is that he just isn’t that likable of a guy who seems to have an issue with the fact people don’t love him. The harder he and his parents try the worse it makes it. He will get the record but the the people will always love Fed and Nadal more IMO Buts that’s just my two cents.
 

6august

Hall of Fame
Djokovic's tennis is like the football of AC Milan under Sacchi. It's the perfect balance between attack, defense and high intelligence.

)))
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Give Agassi the modern day racquets, put them on the high bouncing Grass

Agassi will take him out.

Pete's serve advantage nullified, Agassi's stronger returns will prevail.

Who said Agassi was inferior ? How did Pete never solve the AO riddle vs Agassi if Agassi was inferior ??? |

Dude, Agassi was a worthy peer of Pete in the 90s, he was less focused on Tennis in the 90s and the low bounce conditions did not favor, remove that and he is a force :eek: Inferior athlete??? lol ....
Dude no. Why would Sampras' serve advantage by nullified? Was Federer's nullified? Federer is at most dangerous at serving on grass, and Sampras is the better server between the two. Sampras played with 100% gut. Could you imagine how potent his serve would be with poly and the rackets of today? You've seen Agassi play with poly but not Sampras.

Agassi couldn't beat Sampras at Wimbledon or the USO for a reason. Something like 0-6. AO for the most part was slower except 2000 and I still wouldn't call that fast. Slower conditions favor Agassi over Sampras but he still isn't going to be a favorite over Sampras on the grass of today because Sampras is just better on grass, period, and yes he's the better athlete. Surely, you cannot think Agassi is on the same level athletically?
 

Sunny014

Legend
Dude no. Why would Sampras' serve advantage by nullified? Was Federer's nullified? Federer is at most dangerous at serving on grass, and Sampras is the better server between the two. Sampras played with 100% gut. Could you imagine how potent his serve would be with poly and the rackets of today? You've seen Agassi play with poly but not Sampras.

Agassi couldn't beat Sampras at Wimbledon or the USO for a reason. Something like 0-6. AO for the most part was slower except 2000 and I still wouldn't call that fast. Slower conditions favor Agassi over Sampras but he still isn't going to be a favorite over Sampras on the grass of today because Sampras is just better on grass, period, and yes he's the better athlete. Surely, you cannot think Agassi is on the same level athletically?
On slow Grass serve is less potent than on the fast grass, that is why the bounce was increased to reduce the potency of the serve to avoid servebotting. Sampras even with Poly would not be the same force on Slow Grass and Agassi would be a much bigger force on the slower Grass. Give him a 5 years age advantage like Nadal had over Pete and this conditions, he beats Pete most of the time in that scenario. Even otherwise his chances would increase a lot on the slow grass. If Pete is 6-0 in fast conditions then Agassi is 3-0 in slower conditions, no reason why he cannot steal a win. He stretched Pete to 5 sets in 1993, why do you think he can never win on slow grass ???
 

Jonas78

Legend
I think Djokovic is more disliked than he deserves to be because people are tired of the career inflation era. Younger players overtaking the older ones has always been the history of tennis. I think we finally see how bad the post 87/88 players were and are, with the mean age in USO QFs being 23 when you take away Djokovic.
 

mehdimike

Professional
My friend this is where you are now on a different path of conversation to me. ;)


I am talking about Federer AND Nadal together as Fedal, dominating as a duo, with the point being, even with a near 30 year old Federer as part of that duo, no one other than Djokovic was going to stop them, as 2017, a year when both Federer and Nadal are significantly older still managed to own the tour as a duo and split the slams between them like it was 2005-2010 all over again.

Rafa alone didn't step in, in 2013....he needed Murray's help at Wimbledon because Rafa was a non factor on the grass with a 1st round loss, otherwise Djokovic would have still have had a two slam season and would have been world number one. :)

Federer's party was only a year, 2004. Fedal though was 2005-2010....then Djokovic turned that story upside down.
The thing is Novak is the oldest of the 3 so it makes sense that he made it to the top of the game later than Fedal. If Novak could have ended the so called Fedal Party at 2008-10 I would agree with you. You know Fedal couldn't continue winning for all eternity till mid 2050s:) Why do you pick 2011 as the time reference?! Novak didn't beat the other members of big4 regularly after 2011 season till 2015 RG and onwards. How did he ruin the Party when he went 4-7? against Fedalray during full 3 seasons?!
 
Top