The last time Djokovic made a slam loss competitive was Wim 23

[ghostofMecir]

I don't know if it's a troll i'm guessing you are just out after reaction but he, at age of 38 is only losing to Sinner basically, the #1 player in the world, and partly Alcaraz but he hasn't lost to Alcaraz since last year, prevailing the last 2 times against him. His only really bad loss for the past 3 years came against Popyrin, other than that it is either injuries or Sinner/Alcaraz stopping him, and he is 38.

If you want to add perspective in regards to Federer and Nadal, Federer lost to Anderson, Tsitsipas, Millman and Dimitrov at roundabout the same age in slams. Nadal lost to Zverev last year. And many other players. What are we doing here.

Ah, one of the original posters who talked about "age excuses" and about how "hes only losing to the best players which means the game has evolved. He's still beating everybody else" now making age excuses

lol

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Federer fans not often die on a hill to defend his BH do they?

i've seen "Federer's drive BH clearly > Nadal's" or "Federer's drive BH was outright elite because of what Agassi said at USO '05 and what he did to Blake at YEC '06" or "Federer only ever gave up BH UEs/FEs vs Nadal" here, nvm the Reddit takes of "Federer's BH > Laver's/Edberg's/Kuerten's/etc. because they were s&vers or clay specialists"

definitely more factors than that.

thus "boil down." inherently a nuance-flattening discussion, but then i'm not the one making that choice in the first place, just making an observation of how people think

bh includes bh slice, passing shots and all other variety from the ground

bottom 4 drive BH

and even otherwise, are you really betting on slice, variety, and passing vs McEnroe, Becker, and Lendl? let's be real

lendl's is only better than fed's on clay.

now i know you aren't disrespecting an actual indoor GOAT like this... never mind Lendl grinding out BH rallies vs Wilander, Edberg, Mecir, Agassi, and Chang on outdoor hard...

becker vs fed on hard isn't a tossup

big match play + consistent power + shotmaking potential stacks up well. same for grass but with more focus towards passing (and/or the other bit which was 2nd returning)

becker couldn't even win a HC slam without running into trouble, FFS.

that's more about his erratic playstyle and relatively limited movement than his BH

fed's 2nd serve return while not great was well above average.

it wasn't the case in 03-07 atleast.

well above average 2nd return + best baseliner in the world should have been managing 54% 2nd RPW on outdoor hard more than 1 single year ('07) in his prime, not hovering around 50-52%. even baby Murrole managed to hit 54% in '07, and they were underdeveloped baseliners (and returner in Djokovic's case)!

 

[abmk]

and even otherwise, are you really betting on slice, variety, and passing vs McEnroe, Becker, and Lendl? let's be real

ok, I missed the drive part. my mistake. and why should we only consider drive BH? just because it is a convenient nitpicking point? I'm taking BH as a whole (unless I specify otherwise)
But I am not sure what your statement means.

now i know you aren't disrespecting an actual indoor GOAT like this... never mind Lendl grinding out BH rallies vs Wilander, Edberg, Mecir, Agassi, and Chang on outdoor hard...

and you didn't disrespect another indoor GOAT and HC GOAT in fed like this ..never mind federer grinding out BH rallies vs djokovic, nadal, murray, agassi, safin, delpo, wawa, hewitt, nalby etc. on outdoor hard and indoor hard.

you can't be thinking lendl faced better baseliners than fed did. (he did face better net rushers obviously)

I think fed's marginally ahead (overall BH) on indoors, but you can put on same level. but no way is lendl's clearly better indoors

big match play + consistent power + shotmaking potential stacks up well. same for grass but with more focus towards passing (and/or the other bit which was 2nd returning)

that's more about his erratic playstyle and relatively limited movement than his BH

and his BH was immune from his erratic playstyle. no, it wasn't.
like federer's big match isn't better than Becker's.


the over-rating of Becker big match comes from this

becker level in non-big matches: 7
becker level in big mathes: 9

fed level in non-big matches: 9
fed level in big matches: 9.75

just a rough illustration. just because becker has a bigger jump doesn't mean he has a better level in big matches in general or with his BH

 

[mehdimike]

He's only at 24 thanks to night matches with closed roof at AO and WLOL'22.

What about an RG SF match at 10PM in 2021?! And tge famous 2018 indoor Wimb in the sun.
He also had a favorable conditions at 2020 and 2022 RG editions as well.
The thing is he was a bit lucky in this aspect but he beat his opponents fair and square, can't argue about that.

 

[abmk]

well above average 2nd return + best baseliner in the world should have been managing 54% 2nd RPW on outdoor hard more than 1 single year ('07) in his prime, not hovering around 50-52%. even baby Murrole managed to hit 54% in '07, and they were underdeveloped baseliners (and returner in Djokovic's case)!

on hard outdoor, 2nd serve return points won ...

Lets take 07

fed: 54.2%
djokovic: 54%

now take it vs top 20 and see the big shift:

fed: 52.5%
djoko: 48.8%

vs top 10, it becomes drastic

fed: 54.1%
djoko: 43.1%

fed obviously coasted to some extent vs the lesser players due to his serve

but his 2nd serve return points won vs the top players is pretty good due to well above average 2nd serve return and baseline game.

 

[jm1972]

on hard outdoor, 2nd serve return points won ...

Lets take 07

fed: 54.2%
djokovic: 54%

now take it vs top 20 and see the big shift:

fed: 52.5%
djoko: 48.8%

vs top 10, it becomes drastic

fed: 54.1%
djoko: 43.1%

fed obviously coasted to some extent vs the lesser players due to his serve

but his 2nd serve return points won vs the top players is pretty good due to well above average 2nd serve return and baseline game.

Made me LOL... he "coasted" because he was better?!

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

RG 22 is debatable with djoko and FAA, but Nadal got off lucky with Zverev injury in the SF

Lucky maybe in the sense that it saved him from a gruelling match that would have tired him for the final, but since Ruud was waiting there it wouldn’t have made a difference. However, he was not really lucky in the sense that he would have lost. We didn’t have a Sinner - Dimi or not even a Pete - Scud situation here, but Nadal was still up a set when Zed got injured. Given Nadal’s history at RG and Zed’s unrivalled talent to choke when it gets close, chances that Nadal would have lost here are maybe 10%.

 

[abmk]

Lucky maybe in the sense that it saved him from a gruelling match that would have tired him for the final, but since Ruud was waiting there it wouldn’t have made a difference. However, he was not really lucky in the sense that he would have lost. We didn’t have a Sinner - Dimi or not even a Pete - Scud situation here, but Nadal was still up a set when Zed got injured. Given Nadal’s history at RG and Zed’s unrivalled talent to choke when it gets close, chances that Nadal would have lost here are maybe 10%.

yeah, tiring is what I was referring to. But point is saying 4 top opponents as proof that nadal draw was somewhat tough fails the actual screening when one of them is a bad Ruud and another top 10 opponent retired.

 

[pierceforehands]

I agree, Nadal was never losing that FO even without the Zverev injury. Zverev was NOT going to ever ultimately beat Nadal, I would say all things considered giving that 10% odds is even generous. And Nadal could have went to 10-8 in the 5th with Zverev, and he still has enough to beat clown Ruud easily.

Now if the argument is Nadal's draw was not really a tough draw, and was probably another CIE slam, even with as great as even grandpa Nadal is on clay, no disagreement there really.

 

[mike danny]

Lucky maybe in the sense that it saved him from a gruelling match that would have tired him for the final, but since Ruud was waiting there it wouldn’t have made a difference. However, he was not really lucky in the sense that he would have lost. We didn’t have a Sinner - Dimi or not even a Pete - Scud situation here, but Nadal was still up a set when Zed got injured. Given Nadal’s history at RG and Zed’s unrivalled talent to choke when it gets close, chances that Nadal would have lost here are maybe 10%.

Nadal would’ve won in straights, let’s be honest

 

[RS]

Nadal would’ve won in straights, let’s be honest

Yeah I agree with BorgTheGOAT a 10% chance is fair.

That agenda was pushed hard at one point.

 

[NoleFam]

It's pretty sad when this is all some posters have left. Revelling in the losses of who is widely considered the GOAT of tennis and who's less than 2 years away from 40, while playing guys 14 and 16 years younger. Lol. Hilarious yet sad.