The Big 3 of Grass--put them in order

[GabeT]

And yet would still reach double digits like Djokovic.

Sure, without Novak and Nadal around Fed would have won more post 30. But Fed faced a very different competition when he was younger. that’s true for all athletes and sports.

and the only “objective” analysis I’ve seen indicates that on average Novak faced greater competition than Fed did.

 

[RS]

 

[nolefam_2024]

Perhaps Djokovic fans should say they agree with the career inflation era a bit.

A snowballs chance in hell we will agree to it. Every great has had periods of weak times if their reign is long.

You fedal fan boys cry only because the favorites of yours didn't win as much as Djokovic in the end.

 

[mike danny]

Sure, without Novak and Nadal around Fed would have won more post 30. But Fed faced a very different competition when he was younger. that’s true for all athletes and sports.

and the only “objective” analysis I’ve seen indicates that on average Novak faced greater competition than Fed did.

The last 10 years have brought that average down.

 

[fedfan24]

Djokovic in his 20s at RG and Wimbledon: 4 titles.
Djokovic in his 30s at RG and Wimbledon: 6 titles.
What does that tell you?

He’s a brilliant player but not a 7 Wimbledon title brilliant. He won 4 W titles in his prime which is about right, 3-4. RG he simply waited until Nadal’s body broke down then managed to vulture a couple of extra titles.

 

[zagor]

Yes, but Fed did the same and only walked away with 1/3rd of what Djoker has ended up with so far.

Fed did face tougher competition in his 30s, not just compared to Novak but anyone really (he had two 5-6 younger ATGs chasing him in the 2nd half of his career);

I also think they reached similar peak levels in their 30s.

However when it comes to consistency, Novak comes ahead. Him reaching all 4 slam finals for example in 2021 and 2023 (34 and 36 respectively) is something I don't see Fed replicating at the same age no matter the field.

Look at Fed in 2015 for example. Yes, his level was definitely high and slam worthy at Wimbledon and USO but at AO he lost to Seppi and at FO he went down to Stan in straights. The eventual FO champion I know but still a player for whom Fed is a very tough match-up and yet he couldn't even manage a set.

 

[gamelovergold]

Overall Djokovic is ahead of Sampras, ten finals in total.

But yes, it hurts many that Djokovic is up there with Federer and Sampras as GOATs of Wimbledon. But with 7 titles, he cannot be denied.

Novak with sheer force of will is listed amongest fedrer and sampras. No way novak is better than fedrer and sampras in grass court play but 7 titles suggest that he has to be there in contestant list.

 

[gamelovergold]

For you it doesn't make sense, for me it's an indelible stain on his legacy given that we're talking about a Federer in the prime in his backyard.

While I agree with some of your points, and yes, they are fair and valid, here's the thing.

We keep hearing here over and over that physical peak is in your 20s, that testosterone and all the other good things peak in your 20s and then decline. You are addressing the wear and tear, yes, but biology is biology, and Laver, according to the Djokovic detractors was past his athlete peak by that age, and while the game might not have been as physical, it is offset by the fact they also didn't have the advancements in modern science and nutrition and recovery. And lets not forget, tennis wasn't as global as it is now.

If they are all playing into their 30s, then Laver was winning his CYGS against other players who were also passed their physical peaks. Biology doesn't change, right? Where are the physical peak players we constantly hear Djokovic haters bringing up, when it came to Laver winning a CYGS?

The reason why i bring this up is, and which has now been admitted by Djokovic haters is simple....No one cares enough about Laver, it is too far in the past, and these people were mostly invested in the slam race, so Djokovic winning is what bothers, not what Laver did nearly 60 years ago, it also shows that the slam race was the actual metric that many were using to determine who would be the GOAT. You've been here long enough to see how each fanbase gloated about the numbers, I don't need to say it, you know this and have rightfully pointed it out yourself in the past.

And if Laver can do it with the game not being as physical, why cannot modern medicine and science and nutrition, the most elite training and recovering systems that have ever been seen by mankind, not show a different path to achieving elite level success, especially if you are genetically gifted? I mean, how many people are able to show the flexibility and court coverage Djokovic still shows? Dude can run into splits and still hit massive passing shots past top players.

Has Djokovic aged, yes, of course he has. But how is he offsetting it, so he can peak for big events? By playing less, keeping his body fresher, optimizing what he has for short periods. But anything he wins is simply down to everyone being bad.

novak insane numbers after turning 30 years is what is the cause of CIE theory going through the roof. 12 slams after turning 30 is very big number. Fedrer managed 4 slam rafa managed 8 and novak managed(4+8) . Too much for rafa and roger fan to handle. Roger fan were expecting that rafa will win the race but his clay court dominance will not allow him roger like status. But Novak did the unexpected and won the slam race in 2023. Years ago i was reading a article that novak is greater threat to roger legacy than rafa. Never in my wildest dream i thought that it will become a reality. As great as roger and rafa were they have accepted the truth that it is novak who with his last dash stole the slam race.
Laver acheivement are talked only by roger rafa party to try to diminish the value of 24 carat gold but ......

 

[gamelovergold]

Djokovic in his 20s at RG and Wimbledon: 4 titles.
Djokovic in his 30s at RG and Wimbledon: 6 titles.
What does that tell you?

Novak before turning 30 12 slams
Novak after turning 30 12 slams.
player tend to decline after 30 but it seems novak remained same .how this is possible.

 

[NatF]

Fed did face tougher competition in his 30s, not just compared to Novak but anyone really (he had two 5-6 younger ATGs chasing him in the 2nd half of his career);

I also think they reached similar peak levels in their 30s.

However when it comes to consistency, Novak comes ahead. Him reaching all 4 slam finals for example in 2021 and 2023 (34 and 36 respectively) is something I don't see Fed replicating at the same age no matter the field.

Look at Fed in 2015 for example. Yes, his level was definitely high and slam worthy at Wimbledon and USO but at AO he lost to Seppi and at FO he went down to Stan in straights. The eventual FO champion I know but still a player for whom Fed is a very tough match-up and yet he couldn't even manage a set.

The AO I'll give you was a bad loss but I don't see any 30's Djokovic beating Stan that day, especially when a better Djokovic lost to that Stan in only four sets later in the tournament. IMO Fed was clearly better at Wimbledon in his 30's than Djokovic and that's where the discrepancy lies for the most part. His 2015 USO not getting rewarded with a title when it was probably the best of any of their 30's runs is also a bit unfortunate as well.

 

[RS]

Djokovic is better in his 30s but the slam count overstates it. That's my thoughts.

 

[NatF]

Djokovic is better in his 30s but the slam get overstates it. That's my thoughts.

Would you agree that Fed was better in his 20's?

 

[RS]

Would you agree that Fed was better in his 20's?

yes

 

[NatF]

yes

Which is more important or are they equal?

 

[RS]

Which is more important or are they equal?

I don't know. It makes sense Fed fans would rate him higher like they still do IRL if they think being better in the 20s is more important.

You could really say Federer and Nadal set the pace so far in the 20s that Djokovic should have been expected to be better in his 30s.

 

[NatF]

I don't know. It makes sense Fed fans would rate him higher like they still do IRL if they think being better in the 20s is more important.

You could really say considering Nadal and Federer set the pace so far in there 20s that Djokovic should have been expected to be better in his 30s.

I think both peak play and longevity are important but I lean more towards peak play because that fits my idea of GOAT more. Obviously both guys are strong in both areas.

 

[RS]

I think both peak play and longevity are important but I lean more towards peak play because that fits my idea of GOAT more. Obviously both guys are strong in both areas.

Either way Fed was still great in his 30s and Djokovic was still great in his 20s even if though they probably lost out to the other.

 

[jl809]

Has Djokovic aged, yes, of course he has. But how is he offsetting it, so he can peak for big events? By playing less, keeping his body fresher, optimizing what he has for short periods. But anything he wins is simply down to everyone being bad.

I think part of the reason this thread is rumbling on is because at Wimbledon specifically, everyone WAS bad. From 2017-2022 the only players who made QFs multiple times at Wimbledon were the Big 3. Most players would make a SF or F one year and be out in week 1 the year after, and it’s not because the tour suddenly had insane strength in depth. The hardest competition Djoker faced outside of Fedal was Kyrgios, a guy Murray handled in straights in 2016 despite him serving at 80+% and whom Nadal knocked out in R2 in 2019, yet who somehow made the final in 2022.

Had Djoker pulled out that 5th set in 2023 (the first time since ‘19 he played someone who had a solid baseline and mental game and elite serve / return combo), or if he had displayed a level like Fed 2019 in 2024, people wouldn’t be saying he would have struggled in those earlier years if his competition had been tougher (although this is TTW so tbh people would have been saying it anyway)

I think that’s why you don’t see similar moaning on here about AO “inflation”, because he beat a zoning Thiem in 2020, and pulled out a result like the one against Alcaraz this year or Medvedev in 2021 (pre Medvedev’s form collapse)

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Federer by a hair over Sampras due to his longevity and 2003 SF/F peak.

Djokovic record is inflated (as are many of his title counts) by some of the weakest competition of any slam ever. A geriatric Federer in 3 finals and Berretini, Kyrgios. His main same aged grass rival was finished with injury by 2016, after which Djokovic won another 5 titles. Huge stroke of luck and timing.

Federer being 32 in 2014 being "geriatric" is hilarious. The only one that can be considered so is 2019. I never saw Federer fans refering to Agassi at USO 2004 and 2005 as geriatric back in the day when he was the one holding the records and he was the one accused of having a weak era. Quite the contrary.

 

[Hitman]

I think part of the reason this thread is rumbling on is because at Wimbledon specifically, everyone WAS bad. From 2017-2022 the only players who made QFs multiple times at Wimbledon were the Big 3. Most players would make a SF or F one year and be out in week 1 the year after, and it’s not because the tour suddenly had insane strength in depth. The hardest competition Djoker faced outside of Fedal was Kyrgios, a guy Murray handled in straights in 2016 despite him serving at 80+% and whom Nadal knocked out in R2 in 2019, yet who somehow made the final in 2022.

Had Djoker pulled out that 5th set in 2023 (the first time since ‘19 he played someone who had a solid baseline and mental game and elite serve / return combo), or if he had displayed a level like Fed 2019 in 2024, people wouldn’t be saying he would have struggled in those earlier years if his competition had been tougher (although this is TTW so tbh people would have been saying it anyway)

I think that’s why you don’t see similar moaning on here about AO “inflation”, because he beat a zoning Thiem in 2020, and pulled out a result like the one against Alcaraz this year or Medvedev in 2021 (pre Medvedev’s form collapse)

I will have to disagree here. If he had beaten Alcaraz in that Wimbledon final, which he basically was a point from doing in that second set tie break, we would have only heard even more about his competition being weak, that he beat a guy who had next to zero experience on grass and had just cramped against him in RG a few weeks earlier. The bigging up of if he would have won that match is false IMO. I remember the buzz when many were saying that Kyrgios was 2-0 against Djokovic overall also, heading into W final, and that quickly vanished when Djokovic stepped up and started returning those massive serves.

Regarding 2024, again, I will disagree with you. The guy was coming off a surgical procedure which had him forfeit his defense of his RG title, had he won the title, the amount of crapping on the competition would have reach Jurassic Park levels. Heck, the fact Djokovic beat Alcaraz at Australian Open was massively played down, and it was made out that beating him there was nothing special. The discrediting is always fever pitch around here, so lets agree to disagree on this.

Djokovic took on all comers as best he could. The only win that I would even consider discussing would be 2021, but even then, he beat a guy who had just won Queens, and has the ideal game for grass in the modern era.

 

[RS]

I think part of the reason this thread is rumbling on is because at Wimbledon specifically, everyone WAS bad. From 2017-2022 the only players who made QFs multiple times at Wimbledon were the Big 3. Most players would make a SF or F one year and be out in week 1 the year after, and it’s not because the tour suddenly had insane strength in depth. The hardest competition Djoker faced outside of Fedal was Kyrgios, a guy Murray handled in straights in 2016 despite him serving at 80+% and whom Nadal knocked out in R2 in 2019, yet who somehow made the final in 2022.

Had Djoker pulled out that 5th set in 2023 (the first time since ‘19 he played someone who had a solid baseline and mental game and elite serve / return combo), or if he had displayed a level like Fed 2019 in 2024, people wouldn’t be saying he would have struggled in those earlier years if his competition had been tougher (although this is TTW so tbh people would have been saying it anyway)

I think that’s why you don’t see similar moaning on here about AO “inflation”, because he beat a zoning Thiem in 2020, and pulled out a result like the one against Alcaraz this year or Medvedev in 2021 (pre Medvedev’s form collapse)

AO 2021 and AO 2023 got rinsed for being weak pretty badly. Not sure about the view on AO 2020 there isn't much focus on that tournament in debate.

 

[Hitman]

AO 2021 and AO 2023 got rinsed for being weak pretty badly. Not sure about the view on AO 2020 there isn't much focus on that tournament in debate.

AO 2020 gets crapped on also. Injured Federer in the semis, and then Thiem apparently choking the match away in the final.

 

[Hitman]

@RS - This is what I wrote in another thread....

Right, let me give you the list then of how we get told how lucky Djokovic was on a daily basis here.

AO 2008 - Lucky, only won it because Federer had mono.
AO 2011 - Lucky that Federer was already past his prime, had he faced Federer from 2004-2007 he would have lost. Also lucky surface changed for him, doesn't win on Rebound Ace.
W 2011 - Lucky that Tsonga got rid of Federer, because we all saw what Federer did in 2012 when they played
USO 2011 - Lucky shot 40-15 against Federer, he should have lost
AO 2012 - Lucky Nadal missed the BHDTL, otherwise Nadal wins AO
AO 2013 - Lucky the call went against Wawrinka, Djokovic was losing and going out.
W 2014 - Lucky he didn't have to face prime Federer from 2004-2007 like Nadal did
AO 2015 - Lucky that his main rivals are past their prime and Wawrinka played badly in the semi
W 2015 - Lucky he got 30s Federer, he doesn't beat prime Federer
USO 2015 - Lucky that Federer choked so many BPs
AO 2016 - Lucky he had weak competition
RG 2016 - Lucky his best competition was Murray
W 2018 - Lucky there was a roof or he loses to Nadal
USO 2018 - Lucky he had a weak draw, Nadal had all the tough players, then got his pigeon Del Potro in the final
AO 2019 - Lucky that Nadal was coming back from ankle injury and wasn't match fit
W 2019 - Lucky for the epic Federer choke on 40-15 CP, he should have lost
AO 2020 - Lucky for Thiem choking away a 2-1 lead in the final
AO 2021 - Lucky for weak competition, and Medvedev choking
RG 2021 - Lucky that Nadal was injured and Tsitsipas choked a 2-0 set lead
W 2021 - Lucky for having no grass players, weakest competition ever
W 2022 - Lucky for playing his biggest fanboy Kyrgios in the final and Nadal getting injured
AO 2023 - Lucky for a weak draw with Tsitsipas being pathetic in the final
RG 2023 - Lucky that Alcaraz cramped and gave the match away, and he got Ruud in the final
US 2023 - Lucky that he had an easy draw and Medvedev laid an egg in the final

 

[SeeingDusk]

not surprised most people voted fed, Djoker, Sampras in that order. But I think Djoker is above fed since he beat fed in 3 Wimbledon finals

 

[SeeingDusk]

@RS - This is what I wrote in another thread....

Right, let me give you the list then of how we get told how lucky Djokovic was on a daily basis here.

AO 2008 - Lucky, only won it because Federer had mono.
AO 2011 - Lucky that Federer was already past his prime, had he faced Federer from 2004-2007 he would have lost. Also lucky surface changed for him, doesn't win on Rebound Ace.
W 2011 - Lucky that Tsonga got rid of Federer, because we all saw what Federer did in 2012 when they played
USO 2011 - Lucky shot 40-15 against Federer, he should have lost
AO 2012 - Lucky Nadal missed the BHDTL, otherwise Nadal wins AO
AO 2013 - Lucky the call went against Wawrinka, Djokovic was losing and going out.
W 2014 - Lucky he didn't have to face prime Federer from 2004-2007 like Nadal did
AO 2015 - Lucky that his main rivals are past their prime and Wawrinka played badly in the semi
W 2015 - Lucky he got 30s Federer, he doesn't beat prime Federer
USO 2015 - Lucky that Federer choked so many BPs
AO 2016 - Lucky he had weak competition
RG 2016 - Lucky his best competition was Murray
W 2018 - Lucky there was a roof or he loses to Nadal
USO 2018 - Lucky he had a weak draw, Nadal had all the tough players, then got his pigeon Del Potro in the final
AO 2019 - Lucky that Nadal was coming back from ankle injury and wasn't match fit
W 2019 - Lucky for the epic Federer choke on 40-15 CP, he should have lost
AO 2020 - Lucky for Thiem choking away a 2-1 lead in the final
AO 2021 - Lucky for weak competition, and Medvedev choking
RG 2021 - Lucky that Nadal was injured and Tsitsipas choked a 2-0 set lead
W 2021 - Lucky for having no grass players, weakest competition ever
W 2022 - Lucky for playing his biggest fanboy Kyrgios in the final and Nadal getting injured
AO 2023 - Lucky for a weak draw with Tsitsipas being pathetic in the final
RG 2023 - Lucky that Alcaraz cramped and gave the match away, and he got Ruud in the final
US 2023 - Lucky that he had an easy draw and Medvedev laid an egg in the final

Doesn’t just further proves how clutch Djoker is? Hes the comeback king

 

[Hitman]

Doesn’t just further proves how clutch Djoker is? Hes the comeback king

Nah, he's just lucky and its all about timing, or so I get told here all the time when it comes to anything Djokovic achieves.

 

[jl809]

The discrediting is always fever pitch around here, so let’s agree to disagree on this.

Fair enough. You’re right actually about the Alcaraz AO win tbf, I have seen the threads

AO 2021 and AO 2023 got rinsed for being weak pretty badly. Not sure about the view on AO 2020 there isn't much focus on that tournament in debate.

I think at the time AO 20 was crapped on but hindsight has been kinder to it for sure - once people stepped back and rewatched and saw the level (plus the Nadal QF), and also once people realised that Thiem was probably a notch above any of the other losing finalists at the AO from 2018-now. I don’t see negative comments about that final in anything like the quantity of some other CIE finals on here (on the other hand, AO 23 is simply the easiest draw Djoker has or will ever have for a SF/F… it’s very hard to make any kind of conjecture about that tournament)

People think AO 21 Meddy underperformed in the F but the reality is Djoker also slammed the door hard on him (2 6-2 sets is a beatdown) and 2019-late 2021 has since become seen as Meddy’s “prime”, which has given the win more cred. “Midvedev” as he is now known is a phenomenon that seems to have started with the AO 22 F and remained since

 

[jl809]

@RS - This is what I wrote in another thread....

Right, let me give you the list then of how we get told how lucky Djokovic was on a daily basis here.

AO 2008 - Lucky, only won it because Federer had mono.
AO 2011 - Lucky that Federer was already past his prime, had he faced Federer from 2004-2007 he would have lost. Also lucky surface changed for him, doesn't win on Rebound Ace.
W 2011 - Lucky that Tsonga got rid of Federer, because we all saw what Federer did in 2012 when they played
USO 2011 - Lucky shot 40-15 against Federer, he should have lost
AO 2012 - Lucky Nadal missed the BHDTL, otherwise Nadal wins AO
AO 2013 - Lucky the call went against Wawrinka, Djokovic was losing and going out.
W 2014 - Lucky he didn't have to face prime Federer from 2004-2007 like Nadal did
AO 2015 - Lucky that his main rivals are past their prime and Wawrinka played badly in the semi
W 2015 - Lucky he got 30s Federer, he doesn't beat prime Federer
USO 2015 - Lucky that Federer choked so many BPs
AO 2016 - Lucky he had weak competition
RG 2016 - Lucky his best competition was Murray
W 2018 - Lucky there was a roof or he loses to Nadal
USO 2018 - Lucky he had a weak draw, Nadal had all the tough players, then got his pigeon Del Potro in the final
AO 2019 - Lucky that Nadal was coming back from ankle injury and wasn't match fit
W 2019 - Lucky for the epic Federer choke on 40-15 CP, he should have lost
AO 2020 - Lucky for Thiem choking away a 2-1 lead in the final
AO 2021 - Lucky for weak competition, and Medvedev choking
RG 2021 - Lucky that Nadal was injured and Tsitsipas choked a 2-0 set lead
W 2021 - Lucky for having no grass players, weakest competition ever
W 2022 - Lucky for playing his biggest fanboy Kyrgios in the final and Nadal getting injured
AO 2023 - Lucky for a weak draw with Tsitsipas being pathetic in the final
RG 2023 - Lucky that Alcaraz cramped and gave the match away, and he got Ruud in the final
US 2023 - Lucky that he had an easy draw and Medvedev laid an egg in the final

This is a pretty good summary damn

 

[Hitman]

This is a pretty good summary damn

Now imagine how many times I have heard it for each one that I can write that off the top of my head without any issues. LOL

 

[ChaelAZ]

Fed-Samp-Djo, easy.

I would actually move Samp above Fed for the shorter career and achievements there, but that was a choice so it is what it is.

 

[RS]

Apart from RG 2008 I think you can do what Hitman just did for the whole of the Big 3 careers. RG 2008 is the exception almost everybody agrees Nadal was at a godly untouchable level and not many care about the competition other than to say if Fed played well he would have won a handful more games or a hypothetical matchup with Borg.

 

[Hitman]

Apart from RG 2008 I think you can do what Hitman just did for the whole of the Big 3 careers. RG 08 almost everybody agrees to godly untouchabe level and no one really cares much about the competition other than to say if Fed played well he would have won more games or a hypothetical matchup with Borg.

LOL - Easy....Nadal's competition was basically players who were HC and Grass court GOATs. Where is the sequence of clay specialists?

 

[RS]

LOL - Easy....Nadal's competition was basically players who were HC and Grass court GOATs. Where is the sequence of clay specialists?

Yeah I still think for RG 2008 there is a general exception made even with that. Unless you wanted to create a world were Nadal plays all the best clay players of all time from R1 to R7 which is unrealistic.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Seriously @RS do you NEVER get tired of finding worthless hypotheticals?

 

[RS]

Seriously @RS do you NEVER get tired of finding worthless hypotheticals?

I am engaging with Hitman's and jl809's comments on Djokovic's career.

 

[Hitman]

Yeah I still think for RG 2008 there is a general exception made even with that. Unless you wanted to create a world were Nadal plays all the best clay players of all time from R1 to R7 which is unrealistic.

The point is not rationale, like you are saying, the point is, people will find an angle to take away from any win if they want. And yes, I stand by my statement, that RG 2008 is no exception to this rule.

 

[nolefam_2024]

The point is not rationale, like you are saying, the point is, people will find an angle to take away from any win if they want. And yes, I stand by my statement, that RG 2008 is no exception to this rule.

There are cry baby losers who will find excuses for everything

 

[RS]

The point is not rationale, like you are saying, the point is, people will find an angle to take away from any win if they want. And yes, I stand by my statement, that RG 2008 is no exception to this rule.

Sure I agree it's never gonna be 100% even for RG 08. But it's like a 99.99% consensus on here unlike everything else it's the closest you will come.

 

[Hitman]

Sure I agree it's never gonna be 100% even for RG 08. But it's like a 99.99% consensus on here unlike everything else it's the closest you will come.

Not 100% right? Hence my point.

 

[RS]

Not 100% right? Hence my point.

Agree then lol

 

[fedfan24]

Federer being 32 in 2014 being "geriatric" is hilarious. The only one that can be considered so is 2019. I never saw Federer fans refering to Agassi at USO 2004 and 2005 as geriatric back in the day when he was the one holding the records and he was the one accused of having a weak era. Quite the contrary.

He played like a geriatric. Weak fhs and bhs and bullied all over the court. I thought he played best in 2019 as he had beefed up his groundstrokes by then and was tactically better.

 

[Rosstour]

Where is the Alacaraz option? Great thread idea btw @Rosstour

Even I didn't think it would still be going lol

Also it's proved me very wrong so I'm happy about that

 

[mike danny]

not surprised most people voted fed, Djoker, Sampras in that order. But I think Djoker is above fed since he beat fed in 3 Wimbledon finals

This is when proper context is applied.

 

[Barton]

2015 Federer was better at Wimbledon than 2014/2019 Federer. Fight me.

 

[RS]

2015 Federer was better at Wimbledon than 2014/2019 Federer. Fight me.

You would only get a debate if you said he was better than any one the first 7 wins + 08.

 

[Barton]

You would only get a debate if you said he was better than any one the first 7 wins + 08.

But if I say that, I am an idiot.

 

[RS]

But if I say that, I am an idiot.

Yeah tread safe.

 

[TMF]

not surprised most people voted fed, Djoker, Sampras in that order. But I think Djoker is above fed since he beat fed in 3 Wimbledon finals

Alcaraz above Djokovic because he beat him in 2 Wimbledon finals

 

[SeeingDusk]

Alcaraz above Djokovic because he beat him in 2 Wimbledon finals

Not quite since alca is far away from Nole in Wimbledon titles won. But Fed only has 1 more than nole

 

[adil1972]

No one else has done it better as well. Borg lost to McEnroe in 6th final but like a coward he retired before winning another. Fed won 3 more. Borg is a coward I think.

This Coward from sweden won 11 slams in OE behind only big3 + sampras