Nadal_Django
Legend
Eren
Professional
Federer and Djokovic aren't far apart from each other on clay. Both definitely not ATG on that surface though, not even close.
For them to be ATG's they should have at least won 2 RGs. They had their chances, Federer in 2005-2007 and Djokovic should have edged it in the fifth in 2013 SF RG.
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
If Federer and Djokovic are not ATGs on clay, Edberg, Becker, Wilander are not ATGs overall.
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
Because 5 players did better than Federer and Djokovic on clay (Borg, Nadal, Guga, Wilander, Lendl), while about 10 players did better than Edberg, Becker, Wilander overall.
Eren
Professional
CentreCourt
Rookie
He would definitely have won 5 or 6 slam titles if not for Fed, possibly even 8 or 9, depending on how you like him against 2007 Djokovic in the US Open or Nadal in the 2009 Aus Open.
D
Deleted member 757377
Guest
grand slam wins over top-10s:
tsonga 13
roddick 6
Roddick with 5-6 slams would have been the biggest shame in the history of this sport.
Eren
Professional
It's not about that, you should tell the stories behind the numbers. That would make it interesting and put it in perspective.
You wouldn't like it if someone would cherry-pick stats to show how pathetic Nadal's consistency on non-clay surfaces is f.e. (You could easily pick numbers and time frames to show that Nadal can do just great outside of clay, but you get my point.)
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
If Djokovic had Nadals and Federers competition, he'd be sitting on 15+ slams, and maybe Nadal would be the one having 12-13 slams. Just look at Lews stats what Djokovic had to face in order to win all he has won.
Djokovic wasn't fortunate enough to have Berdych, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Puerta, Soderling, Anderson, Cilic (list goes on) in slam finals. In the end, looking at their careers (big 3), there are many coincidences and margins that have made their slam tally to look the way it looks right now.
Djokovic wasn't fortunate enough to have Berdych, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Puerta, Soderling, Anderson, Cilic (list goes on) in slam finals. In the end, looking at their careers (big 3), there are many coincidences and margins that have made their slam tally to look the way it looks right now.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Wins over top 10's at the USO.
Nadal 5
Djokovic 11
Nadal with more USO titles than Djokovic is a massive shame no?
Eren
Professional
This is what I meant by my comment towards aman92. We can all cherry-pick stats this way.
CentreCourt
Rookie
Eren
Professional
Nadal (2005-2007 on HC) and Djokovic (2017-present on any surface) would be punished for being mugs. He is not going show that. It's self-evident though.
EDIT: Federer pre-2003 was a mug himself. There's a difference between being a mug and thus playing like a mug. The minute an ATG wins a Slam he isn't a mug anymore imo. So Federer 2003 and onwards is a good player. Nadal 2005 and onwards, Djokovic 2008 and onwards. The periods before their first win aren't indicative of their abilities.
Last edited:
CentreCourt
Rookie
Clearly. Why else would it be limited to "Wins Against ATGs, (but only when Nadal is playing well enough to reach a semi-final/final/on clay)"?
Djokovic was fortunate to have Murray and Wawrinka in 4 GS finals and he blew it, so no it wouldn't help him. And if he beat Nishikori, he would have Cilic in the final at USO 14. There were plenty of opportunities for Djokovic to have easy finals, but he blew it.
Also, what makes you think Djokovic would beat Safin and Roddick? He is having losing h2h versus them.
If Djokovic can lose to Wawrinka and Murray, he can lose to Safin and Hewitt too.
No, please stop with the excuses and enjoy tennis and accept things the way they are. Fed would also have 30 majors if Rafa wasn't a lefty, so please anyone can make excuses.
It's not the stats, it's his manipulation of the stats. And he knows well damn what he is doing, that's even worse than making a mistake.
Let me explain how stat manipulation works:
RG titles of Nadal's competition on clay
jokovic 1, Federer 1.W titles of Federer's competition on grass:Murray 2, Djokovic 3, Nadal 2, Hewitt 1.
And the fact that you support his actions just tells me that you are a bad person
.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
I didn't say Djokovic would have 25 slams. I said 15+.
Nadal for example got Berdych in a Wimbledon final, Djokovic had to play Murray, Nadal and Federer 2 times. Federer has had philipoussis and Cilic for example.
At USO, Djokovic had Federer, Nadal 2 times, Murray and Wawrinka (Djokovic was playing at about 60% due to physical issues and was fortunate with making the final). While Nadal has gotten to play Anderson in a final.
Djokovic slam final opponents
Tsonga
Federer 3 times
Nadal 7 times
Murray 8 times
Wawrinka 2 times
Compare that to Nadal and Federers opponents.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Philippoussis played well though...
His SF + F stats are very good right?
No need to underrate players man, I do think up until around 2015 Djokovic had the hardest competition for his wins - that being said Philippoussis more than deserved his place and clearly played better than Murray in a few of those slam finals.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Philippoussis played well though...
His SF + F stats are very good right?
No need to underrate players man, I do think up until around 2015 Djokovic had the hardest competition for his wins - that being said Philippoussis more than deserved his place and clearly played better than Murray in a few of those slam finals.
Yet Federer won in 3 sets anyway?
Why don't semi finals count? Federer had to meet Djokovic in many semis, plus Roddick, Nadal and others.
NatF
Bionic Poster
In two tiebreaks yes?
Federer hit 50 winners in three sets, so yeah as well as Philippoussis played he lost in three sets
Are you trying to troll?
But what if you count semis? Federer had to play Nole, Rafa, Roddick, Murray, Hewitt, Safin probably in many semis.Philippoussis played well though...
His SF + F stats are very good right?
No need to underrate players man, I do think up until around 2015 Djokovic had the hardest competition for his wins - that being said Philippoussis more than deserved his place and clearly played better than Murray in a few of those slam finals.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I was talking overall.
Well, of course on paper Fed probably had it easier, but that's normal, that's simple math, not luck.
If you make the most semis and finals than your rivals, then surely you will meet them less in finals than they meet you and you will have more "easy" finals. That is how system works, it's normal.
Not to mention the elephant in the room that lower ranked players can play at a very high level, so it doesn't really matter.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
In two tiebreaks yes?
Federer hit 50 winners in three sets, so yeah as well as Philippoussis played he lost in three sets
Are you trying to troll?
Sure, I'm not disputing that Philipoussis was playing well but my point is Djokovic has reached 21 slam finals and in ONLY one of them he got Tsonga. Wawrinka was also a good draw for him and the FO loss was bad but the USO one Djokovic was never 100% physically.
He never got the chance to play easier opponents in finals like Federer and Nadal had. Sorry, but that is the truth. And that's why in the end their slam tallies IMO comes down to coincidences and a little bit of luck aswell. Nadal having 5 slams more or Federer having 8, doesn't tell us that they are that much better players than him, cause that isn't the truth.
Is he suggesting that if Mark is playing well, that Federer can't still beat him? Sounded like that to me.In two tiebreaks yes?
Federer hit 50 winners in three sets, so yeah as well as Philippoussis played he lost in three sets
Are you trying to troll?
What makes you think Djokovic would still win if he had some easier finals? He was playing terribly versus Wawrinka and Murray. I think Gonzalez and Berdych on fire would beat this poor version of Djokovic.
And Djokovic USO 07 wasn't playing so great either, so he would still probably lose Ferrer on fire.
augustobt
Legend
I have a strong feeling he won't reply this.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
But he never got the same opportunity to go against such opponents. Instead he had to fight champion after champion.
21 slam finals my friend. In 18 of them had to play Federer, Nadal and Murray. That is a joke.
That's because Federer made more finals, he is better. If Djokovic made 30 finals and Federer made 21 finals, he would also have a lot of easy finals.
This is how it works, if you are better, you get easier finals, that's how rankings work. It's normal. That's why Rafa on clay had Puerta, Ferrer, Thiem, Wawrinka but Djokovic and Federer always had to play Rafa in the final. This is normal, not luck, the better you are the more the draw opens up.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Murray at the AO in 2011 and 2016 was easy. Djokovic hasn't been deep in slams as many times as Federer and he's lost on multiple occasions (six times) to non ATG's - Murray x2, Wawrinka x3, Nishikori etc...Federer has a couple of those losses to Safin and Del Potro but that's it during his best slam winning years. Federer was much better at shutting that level of player down even when they were playing hot - that's the difference. Djokovic in 2011/2015 was insane but 2012-2014 etc...there's no comparison and you can't just blame competition.
Last edited:
And they can't even prevent 36 old Fed from dominating the game.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
That is definitely true, that the more finals you play you will eventually get those easier opponents. But Federer didn't have to make that many finals before he had to play Baghdatis and Gonzalez.
21 slam finals is ALOT still. We are talking about top 3 most finals ever. For sure that is enough to get a couple of easier rides. I think it is difficult to compare when on the other side (Fed and nadal) got Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Anderson, Puerta, Berdych, Cilic
NatF
Bionic Poster
Well Djokovic got Murray at the AO in 2011 to kick off his arrival as the man, Federer in the SF ofc but Murray himself was poor - I don't like to mention Tsonga because I think he actually played well but then so did Gonzalez or even Puerta. I already said I think Djokovic had some really tough competition early on with Federer/Nadal but if he shut down Murray and Wawrinka a couple more times like I expect Fedal would have he'd be on 14-15 slams anyway.
Yes, but Federer had to play Djokovic and Roddick before Gonzalez. Fed also had to play Roddick in semis before Phillipousis. Why don't semi finals count?
I can see your point, though, but it evens out in the end because Djokovic and Nadal are the first ones in history of the sport that didn't have to play younger all time greats. And Federer was past 30 in most Djokovic finals, so surely that is a break.
When will 25 year old Federer have the chance to play 31 year old Djokovic? Never.
You only see your side here, things are more complicated and they even themselves out in the end.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
So we should expect Djokovic to win every final he played Murray? At some point a loss is inevitable when you play so many times against each other.
Wawrinka loss at FO was bad, but USO loss wasn't really so bad considering the circumstances.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think it has evened out at all, yet at least. Djokovics career isn't finished yet and he is working on his way back to former glory so maybe it will all even out when all is said and done, but right now it isn't evened out IMO.
Yes, we should expect Djokovic winning every final versus non greats. Fed did it. Fed never lost a GS final Murray, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt.
But you forget one important thing. Djokovic was in his prime those times. If Djokovic was over 30, he could get a pass losing those finals, but Djokovic lost to them at his absolute prime.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Murray is a great. 11 GS finals, Olympic champion, Davis cup champion, YECs champion, #1 player.
Yes, the fact that Djokovic didn't have to play two goat contenders 6 years younger than him makes up for Fed's easier finals. And also the fact that most of the time he got past prime Federer too. So, things are pretty even as far as I'm concerned.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer is 5-1 against Murray in slams, his only loss being in his worst year e.g. 2013. So yeah if you're saying Djokovic is at Federer's level I expect him to beat Murray pretty much every time like Federer did to the likes of Hewitt and Roddick - and before you complain Murray's level of play isn't on a different level to theirs. Not to mention going down in four sets to Nishikori etc...don't see that happening to Federer in one of his peak years...
Djokovic was lucky to make the USO final in 2016 so yeah agree there.
Ok, so Federer had to deal with three all time greats 6 years younger than him, that is even tougher for Federer then. Plus Agassi as a bonus too. Agassi is all time great too.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
If Murray is a great so are Hewitt and Roddick.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Hewitt and Roddick made 4 and 5 GS finals. Murray has 11, including making all finals at all slams. Murray is on another level.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Murray:
5 finals at the AO
1 final at the FO
3 finals at Wimbledon
2 finals at the USO
Roddick:
0 finals at the AO
0 finals at the FO
3 finals at Wimbledon
2 finals at USO
Hewitt:
1 final at the AO
0 at the FO
1 at Wimbledon
2 at the USO
Djokovic lost to Murray at Wimbledon and the USO where Murray doesn't seem to really be a different level going by your metric. Part of making lots of slam finals is longevity as well which is really unfair on a guy like Lleyton who had so many injuries early in his career.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic dealt with those three aswell. Age and all that you mention , experience takes you a long way. Being more experienced is a big advantage.
Similar threads
