So Nole at AO is better than Federer at Wimby now?

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
Meh, losing early will always enhance your legacy.

I commend Fed for being so good on grass even at 37, it's one of the reasons I respect and make arguments for him a lot of times, cuz he just keeps on performing way past expectations.
And so does Nadal, but you keep bashing him for some reason.

People are gonna regret it when all this "weak era post 30s Big 3 is gone", cuz the others ain't even at that level. Most of them will have no legacy to speak of in the first place.
I don't give players credit for losing finals. Nobody will convince me Federer choking like crazy in Wimbledon 2019 is more impressive than Djokovic actually winning titles.

Congratz on the title, by the way.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
I don't give players credit for losing finals. Nobody will convince me Federer choking like crazy in Wimbledon 2019 is more impressive than Djokovic actually winning titles.
You said it damages their legacy, like that makes sense. It neither adds nor takes away anything when talking achievements.

But it does give some perspective on longevity if they make finals and play well at their age, which is surely not a negative.

If you meant that Federer is less impressive because he has less titles, but more finals, that's another story.

Congratz on the title, by the way.
Thanks, I guess...
 

Sephiroth

Hall of Fame
Was already better at 8-0 with a clean streak, 9-0 is just extra gravy

Only Federer fans associated Wimbledon with Federer then fell flat on their face lmao but he's never been a lock at Wimbledon like the way Rafa has been at RG and Djokovic at AO. In Novak's case, esp once he reaches SF and F, that's when he starts to play his best tennis
 
I mean, not exactly.

Fed lost 4 Wimbledon finals, 3 of them in tight 5 set matches. Additionally he tore his meniscus in a 5 set SF.

I know, I know but 3 additional finals and extra SF WITH how he played in them means something to me. Also the longevity. Fed has 16 year span at Wimbledon, Novak at 13 right now.
That's span between first and last final, right? If you count span between first and last title, Federer is currently at 14 at Wimbledon (2003-2017), so only one year longer than Djokovic at the Australian Open.

Anyway, I do agree with you that it's still close between them and there is a good case that 8-4 in finals trumps 9-0 in finals.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Fact is, Djokovic lost quiet many times in AO, but never in a semifinal or final. He would have probably lost in 2009, 2010 and 2018 if he went farther, but that didn't happen.
Difference is, he was actually in slam winning form in 2014 unlike the other cases. His match with Wawrinka was the de facto final.

He gets to keep his semi and final stat because of the way the draw worked out. He still lost to the eventual winner regardless, so it's not any different to losing a semi or a final.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Djokovic at AO is undefeated past the QF, that’s a 100% victory rate like Nadal. Which isn’t the case with Federer at Wimbledon, despite his obvious greatness. But salty fans need a way to cope, I guess.



Some high level of mental gymnastics.
Djokovic's loss to Wawrinka wouldn't have magically been turned into a win had it been a SF.

What you're doing is glorious cherry picking. If he'd never a QF, you'd be saying how he is undefeated starting with the QF stage. But because he is not, better cherry pick to semifinals.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Yeah, talking about hypothetical, non existent scenarios to debunk actual facts. That’s the ultimate way of coping.
Your way of actually coping is dismissing the Wawrinka win because it wasn't a semi or a final. Djokovic still lost to the eventual winner.
 

Imperator

Hall of Fame
Your way of actually coping is dismissing the Wawrinka win because it wasn't a semi or a final. Djokovic still lost to the eventual winner.
I’m not dismissing anything, as his match against Wawrinka has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You’re the one who brought up something that never happened to dismiss Djokovic’s stats past the QF.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I’m not dismissing anything, as his match against Wawrinka has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You’re the one who brought up something that never happened to dismiss Djokovic’s stats past the QF.
Djokovic never lost past QF is just a coincidence, nothing more. He somply didn't get the opponents wjo could beat him at those stages after 2012.
 

maratha_warrior

Hall of Fame
But there is no point in this comparison .

Federer is the best at Wimbledon ( 8 titles ) and Novak is the best that Australian ( 9 titles ) .

Novak became Hardcourt GOAT now and that should be the focus ,not about Fed on grass .
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
Yeah, Med suddenly became a weak era mug after his loss, lol. But you’re right, Cilic is a much better opponent in a GS final.
Med was already a weak era mug before. He is part of generation useless along with Zverev and Co. A 20 match winning streak in best of three and against subpar opposition is fine and well but the gap between them and even the geriatric versions of the big three in slams is so big it is not even funny as it was again wonderfully displayed today.
 

Tarkovsky

Rookie
Federer is now third in the pet slam list.

When the dust settles on the big 3 I think he's going to be third on most of the lists.
Federer is already now THIRD in the Slam count at the same age as Djokovic now - 33 years and 9 months:

Nadal 19 slams
Djokovic 18 slams
Federer 17 slams

Not to mention Djokovic leading him in weeks @ No1 and 6 YE as number one vs. Federer's 5.

Federer is only still leading in ATP Finals 6 - 5 while Djokovic l;eads him in Masters 1000 by 36:24 at the same age.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
There can be no doubt that his record is better, significantly better. Federer lost 4 to younger tier 1 ATGs though and there are no younger tier anything ATGs after the Nadal/Djokovic generation. All credit to Djokovic but it would be more entertaining as a fan to watch him do it against younger greats who can actually challenge him.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Pity Roger Federer will go down in history as the 3rd on most slams.
Poor guy got 2 ATGs below him in the next generation chasing him while they have none.
It is a daunting task to face 2 ATGs with contrasting styles/strengths right below you, too bad Rafa+Novak have none below them.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
There can be no doubt that his record is better, significantly better. Federer lost 4 to younger tier 1 ATGs though and there are no younger tier anything ATGs after the Nadal/Djokovic generation. All credit to Djokovic but it would be more entertaining as a fan to watch him do it against younger greats who can actually challenge him.
Swings and roundabouts. Federer gobbled up most of his slams when there was no ATG older opposition still able to win titles.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Pity Roger Federer will go down in history as the 3rd on most slams.
Poor guy got 2 ATGs below him in the next generation chasing him while they have none.
It is a daunting task to face 2 ATGs with contrasting styles/strengths right below you, too bad Rafa+Novak have none below them.
Nadal had to face prime Federer for the first half of his career and prime Djokovic throughout most of his career.

Federer and Djokovic had it easier at opposite ends of their careers.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Meh, I’d still say Fed’s 2003-2009 run is something Djokovic hasn’t matched in level. Would say that overall his runs have been higher-quality, and it’s a bit annoying that it has to come down to these last two AO wins given how middling they both were by Djokovic’s standards. Meanwhile I should certainly expect the likes of 2014-2015 Federer to win Wimbledon if he switched places with Djokovic.

Fed will still be better in this comparison imo, but I can’t fault anyone who now would lean Djokovic.

btw win rate in finals is a pretty poor metric to go by imo
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Nadal had to face prime Federer for the first half of his career and prime Djokovic throughout most of his career.

Federer and Djokovic had it easier at opposite ends of their careers.
Nd why is it tougher to face someone in the first place if you are skilled enough?
I would find an exam tough even if I study but don't have the necessary aptitude for it, but if I do have the aptitude and the calling for that subject then I would look a natural on it ..... right ?

Sameway Nadal would demolish everyone on clay from Federer's and his own gen because he was great on it but struggled on HCs and Grass, why? Because he is not that good there .... Duh!!!
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Federer and his gen kicked out the ATGs before them by beating them, thats why.
Here there is no one to beat because there aren't any.
Incorrect. The previous ATGs were done by the time Federer emerged -that's how it used to be in the old days before the age shift.

Plus, Nadal and Djokovic were babies. That's why Federer started sweeping up titles. As soon as ATGs emerged to challenge him Federer's slam winning frequency fell off a cliff.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Nd why is it tougher to face someone in the first place if you are skilled enough?
I would find an exam tough even if I study but don't have the necessary aptitude for it, but if I do have the aptitude and the calling for that subject then I would look a natural on it ..... right ?

Sameway Nadal would demolish everyone on clay from Federer's and his own gen because he was great on it but struggled on HCs and Grass, why? Because he is not that good there .... Duh!!!
That'll be why in four HC slam meetings Nadal leads Federer 3-1, presumably?
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Incorrect. The previous ATGs were done by the time Federer emerged -that's how it used to be in the old days before the age shift.

Plus, Nadal and Djokovic were babies. That's why Federer started sweeping up titles. As soon as ATGs emerged to challenge him Federer's slam winning frequency fell off a cliff.
As if not being babies they've made made back to back finals in multiple slams like Federer used to ?
Nadal has been clueless on Grass since 2011, Djoker learned to play on Grass by 2014, Nadal even on HCs has never been great except 2013 and to some extent 2009 before his knee injury .....he has 0 WTF wins in his 16 years since he won his 1st slam.... why? why is he such a loser there???

So not being a baby has not helped Nadal ... right ? ... He remained 1 dimensional ?


The moment you win your 1st slam you are not a baby, PERIOD
Federer was great on all courts to reach finals all the time while Nadal was a loser outside clay who had to improve, djoker was a loser outside HCs who had to improve ... just accept that Federer is superior ...... a lot easier!

Nd yes, Sampras was KICKED OUT by next gen, he retired because he was a coward who did not have the guts to continue like Agassi (1 yr older) did against Federer because he saw his end in his Federer's eyes in 2001.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
That'll be why in four HC slam meetings Nadal leads Federer 3-1, presumably?
Nd yet NADAL has not even half the HC slams as Federer ?

I would take 11 slams and have a losing h2h to some schmuck than have a wining H2H but less slams.

Like Murray who is 2-0 vs Djokovic on Grass but has 2 wimbledons to DJoker's 5

So whats the use of a winning H2H when you are clearly inferior?
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Nadal is inferior to Federer on HCs
Nadal is inferior to Federer on Grass
Nadal is inferior to Federer at the WTFs Indoor
Nadal is inferior to Federer on Blue Clay
Nadal is superior to Federer on Red Clay.
Nadal is inferior to Federer on Carpets

Damn Nadal is 1-5 to Federer across different conditions.
 

6august

Hall of Fame
As if not being babies they've made made back to back finals in multiple slams like Federer used to ?
Nadal has been clueless on Grass since 2011, Djoker learned to play on Grass by 2014, Nadal even on HCs has never been great except 2013 and to some extent 2009 before his knee injury .....he has 0 WTF wins in his 16 years since he won his 1st slam.... why? why is he such a loser there???

So not being a baby has not helped Nadal ... right ? ... He remained 1 dimensional ?


The moment you win your 1st slam you are not a baby, PERIOD
Federer was great on all courts to reach finals all the time while Nadal was a loser outside clay who had to improve, djoker was a loser outside HCs who had to improve ... just accept that Federer is superior ...... a lot easier!

Nd yes, Sampras was KICKED OUT by next gen, he retired because he was a coward who did not have the guts to continue like Agassi (1 yr older) did against Federer because he saw his end in his Federer's eyes in 2001.
Sampras is like Forrest Gump, a free soul. He started running for no reason and one day he stopped and came home for no reason.

Both Fred and Noel idolize Pete, I tell ya.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Yes quite clearly. 9-0 in the finals and 18-0 in the final four and beyond is insane.

Also, Federer basically turned Novak into an ATG on grass. He let Novak beat him 3 times in finals and he also lost that infamous match to Nadal in 2008.

Djokodal, Sampras and Borg never let anyone triumph on their home turf when they made it to the business end.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Yes quite clearly. 9-0 in the finals and 18-0 in the final four and beyond is insane.

Also, Federer basically turned Novak into an ATG on grass. He let Novak beat him 3 times in finals and he also lost that infamous match to Nadal in 2008.

Djokodal, Sampras and Borg never let anyone triumph on their home turf when they made it to the business end.
So, Fed did better at the AO with 6-1 record in finals and the USO with 5-2 record in finals, that at Wimbledon with 8-4 ?
While Djokovic and Nadal have a perfect record in finals at their pet slams, they have a negative record in finals at 2 other slams.Fed has a negative record in finals only at the French.
 
Last edited:

clout

Hall of Fame
So, Fed did better at the AO with 6-1 record in finals and the USO with 5-2 record in finals, that at Wimbledon with 8-4 ?
While Djokovic and Nadal have perfect record in finals at thei pet slams, they have a negative record in finals at 2 other slams.Fed has a negative record only in the FO finals.
Well no but when you compare the top tier all-time greats, their performance at their favourite slam matters quite a lot and Fed is the only one out of those four/five to not be able to defend his turf on all occasions
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Well no but when you compare the top tier all-time greats, their performance at their favourite slam matters quite a lot and Fed is the only one out of those four/five to not be able to defend his turf on all occasions
Fed is not as tough mentally as the other 3, he had the greatest competition from the youngsters and he has a habbit to reach the finals even if he plays bellow par sometimes, thanks to his base level of play.
 

6august

Hall of Fame
07/08 Nadal , 14/15 Djokovic and 04/09 Roddick and 12 Murray should say it all about the competition Federer has had at Wimbledon.
If Medvedev wins Slam (I think he will) then Tsonga will be the only Slamless opponent of Djokovic in his AO finals.

And I think we all love that Tsonga.
 

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Face nobodies and anyone can look better on stats.

Federer at wimbledon is still ahead.

If Novak makes it 11 titles then he will be better IMO.
Even 10 is not enough.

Federer has 8 wimbledon wins, 3 close 5 set defeats and 1 4set loss.....

So if you are beating nobodies then he will need 9+2 to beat 8+3
"Nobodies":
Hewitt x2
Ferrer x3
Federer x4
Tsonga x2
Berdych x2
Murray x5
Nadal x2
Wawrinka x2
Raonic x3
Nishikori x2
Medvedev x2
Thiem
Zverev
 

RS

Legend
"Nobodies":
Hewitt x2
Ferrer x3
Federer x4
Tsonga x2
Berdych x2
Murray x5
Nadal x2
Wawrinka x2
Raonic x3
Nishikori x2
Medvedev x2
Thiem
Zverev
He beat ATG level Nadal of AO 12 and Stan of AO 13 which was even more impressive.
 
Last edited:

RS

Legend
He's better at Wimbledon too, I mean what's gonna stop him from 5+ more against this kind of opposition? sorry, forgot how pathetic clay specialist nadal and fraudick were, can't possible compare with the assortment of grass vice-boats we have now, mea culpa, entschuldigung, je vous en prie...
Djokovic has beaten the big 4 in 16/18 slams.
 
Top