The problem with Novak Djokovic G. O. A. T. claims: Nadal and Federer rivalries

maratha_warrior

Hall of Fame
Djoker has no reason to complain that he has had Murray.

Ya and Murray /Stan are the reasons Djoker trails in Slam collection and Djoker has himself to blame if he never reaches Slam count of Nadal atleast...
Federer has achieved his pole position and next few years will be a fight between Djokovic and Nadal to win 2nd position in Slam race...
 

MS_07

Semi-Pro
As always, u show the side which is suitable to you, let's finish the list,

10+ slam finalists per birth year:

1952 Connors
1953
1954
1955
1956 Borg
1957
1958
1959 McEnroe
1960 Lendl
1961
1962
1963
1964 Wilander
1965
1966 Edberg
1967 Becker
1968
1969
1970 Agassi
1971 Sampras
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981 Federer
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986 Nadal
1987 Djokovic, Murray
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
- Zverev ?

If any ATG was born in these years, joker's slam count would be in single digits.

He's no greater than agassi. Just a mug who vultured slems with no competition/ I wonder where mugzy was f apping in this whole time.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Why stop there, he's no greater than Wilander either, it's all eternal career inflation. :cry:
Lol at safin, roddick, hewitt and nalbandian being inferior to murray....
No they're not
On their heyday, they are much much powerful and way better than murray (no insult to mury and not denying these guys' decline post 2008)
:-D And how often was that? Once every gazillion years? How much did they make Fed sweat with all that power and quality? They weren't a consistent threat all the way until 2008 anyway. For all the crap Murray gets for generally not performing as well as he could have at the biggest stages, he STILL did it more often than those guys (and I am not even going to mention how much more successful he was at reaching those stages to begin, which as undisputed fact speaks volumes about a player, more than the fancy judging of peak level of play where Roddick is considered as good as some multiple Wimbledon winners, which is grasping at straws). 5 career Majors between them. Four of them, and they couldn't even double the total that Murray has alone. Sh1tting-pants worthy stuff. :laughing:
Djoker has no reason to complain that he has had Murray.
Didn't imply he had the reason to complain. It was just a response to the other guy saying that Fed would have loved playing against the recent field. They both end up dominating their era again if you switch them.
 

Plamen1234

Hall of Fame
Why stop there, he's no greater than Wilander either, it's all eternal career inflation. :cry:

:-D And how often was that? Once every gazillion years? How much did they make Fed sweat with all that power and quality? They weren't a consistent threat all the way until 2008 anyway. For all the crap Murray gets for generally not performing as well as he could have at the biggest stages, he STILL did it more often than those guys (and I am not even going to mention how much more successful he was at reaching those stages to begin, which as undisputed fact speaks volumes about a player, more than the fancy judging of peak level of play where Roddick is considered as good as some multiple Wimbledon winners, which is grasping at straws). 5 career Majors between them. Four of them, and they couldn't even double the total that Murray has alone. Sh1tting-pants worthy stuff. :laughing:

Didn't imply he had the reason to complain. It was just a response to the other guy saying that Fed would have loved playing against the recent field. They both end up dominating their era again if you switch them.

Here is the thing.Murray have Slams because of Djokovic.Roddick and Hewitt could have had won few more Slams but Federer didnt allow that because Federer knows how to deal with non ATG players in GS finals unlike Djokovic who lost 4 finals to such players.And lets not also forget that Stan is a multiple GS champion because of Djokovic.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Here is the thing.Murray have Slams because of Djokovic.Roddick and Hewitt could have had won few more Slams but Federer didnt allow that.Djokovic on the other side made Murray and Stan GS champions.
I am not denying that throughout his career Federer is more reliable against the field and simply the better player. But if taken to extreme, that last line makes it sound like both Djokovic's Slam wins and the rare wins against him were earned the easy way. "With Djokovic" Murray has three Slams, but without him he could have had even more, as well as a Career Slam, and the simple fact that he put himself in position to fight for Slams way more often than Roddick and Hewitt also made it more likely for him to win more, whoever was across the net. Losing to Stan multiple times was stupid though for several reasons.
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
Even if what you say is true, how exactly was Federer meant to do anything about this?

You can't prove that Federer wouldn't have beaten ATGs in slams in those years, had he faced them (like he beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001).

Also, part of the reason why no other player from that generation reached more than 5 slam finals is because Federer himself stopped them from doing so - i.e. Roddick reached 5 slam finals, but lost the semi-finals of Wimbledon 2003 and AO 2007 to Federer; Hewitt reached 4 slam finals, but lost the semi-finals of Wimbledon 2005 and USO 2005 to Federer. So you're punishing Federer for making a mockery of the rest of his generation.
Even without Federer other players of his generation would be far from ATG level.
5 slam finals is just an example. Murray reached 11 slam finals dealing with 3 GOATs, not just 1.
 
Why stop there, he's no greater than Wilander either, it's all eternal career inflation. :cry:

:-D And how often was that? Once every gazillion years? How much did they make Fed sweat with all that power and quality? They weren't a consistent threat all the way until 2008 anyway. For all the crap Murray gets for generally not performing as well as he could have at the biggest stages, he STILL did it more often than those guys (and I am not even going to mention how much more successful he was at reaching those stages to begin, which as undisputed fact speaks volumes about a player, more than the fancy judging of peak level of play where Roddick is considered as good as some multiple Wimbledon winners, which is grasping at straws). 5 career Majors between them. Four of them, and they couldn't even double the total that Murray has alone. Sh1tting-pants worthy stuff. :laughing:

Didn't imply he had the reason to complain. It was just a response to the other guy saying that Fed would have loved playing against the recent field. They both end up dominating their era again if you switch them.

They were inconsistent from 2008 onwards, but before that fed thrashed them so badly in slams...
He made them look that bad, which they weren't
He didn't lose slam matches to them unlike djoker who lost to wawrinka, murray, nishikori in his peak years (djoker had a big part in making mury look better)
And No way djoko wouldn't end up dominating the fed era
Which had way faster and better nadal on clay (2005-07) than djoko era.(2014-16)
Hewitt ~ Murray so I grant that
Roddick + nalbandian > NoBHpotro+cilic
Safin > wawrinka (both inconsistent but on heyday safin is better than wawa)
Also he has suffered a lot against power hitters, so Gonzalez and blake type players would have surely troubled him a lot...
Still he would be no.1, but I have bo reason yo believe that djoker from 2014-16 would've massacred the field of 2005-07
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
They were inconsistent from 2008 onwards, but before that fed thrashed them so badly in finals
He didn't lose slam matches to them unlike djoker who lost to wawrinka, murray, nishikori in his peak years (djoker had a big part in making mury look better)
And No way djoko wouldn't end up dominating the fed era
Which had way faster and better nadal on clay (2005-07) than djoko era.(2014-16)
Hewitt ~ Murray so I grant that
Roddick + nalbandian > NoBHpotro+cilic
Safin > wawrinka (both inconsistent but on heyday safin is better than wawa)
Also he has suffered a lot against power hitters, so Gonzalez and blake type players would have surely troubled him a lot...
Still he would be no.1, but I have bo reason yo believe that djoker from 2014-16 would've massacred the field of 2005-07
From 2008 onwards? Hewitt wasn't even making it to Federer regularly at Majors after 2005, Safin had just one deep run (at Wimbledon of all places) after his 2004-05 Aussie Open tournaments, which pales in comparison with Wawrinka's consistency at Slams in 2013-16, while Roddick also started to regress before 2008. Now if you think that all those guys, combined with even Gonzalez and Blake type of players would have given freaking Djokovic a lot of trouble in 2005-07, when they were already experiencing their own problems as well, then clearly you don't rate Djokovic highly at all.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Here is the thing.Murray have Slams because of Djokovic.Roddick and Hewitt could have had won few more Slams but Federer didnt allow that because Federer knows how to deal with non ATG players in GS finals unlike Djokovic who lost 4 finals to such players.And lets not also forget that Stan is a multiple GS champion because of Djokovic.

It's ridiculous to try to compare Roddick and Hewitt with Murray, and then try to equate what they did with Federer at his peak to what Murray did to the big 3 at their peak. Roddick lost 15/16 times against Federer from 2001-2007 and Hewitt lost to Federer 15 straight times from 2004-2010. So if these two players can't even beat him in a 250 tournament, how in the hell are they good enough to defeat him in a Slam final? From 2005-2013 Murray never lost more than 3 matches in a row to Federer.

Also, who ever pushed Federer at his peak at Wimbledon before a final like Del Potro did to Djokovic in 2013? Only thing close to that was Del Potro at the Olympics and we saw how that turned out didn't we? Did Federer have to play multiple days before a RG final like Djokovic did in 2015 after going through a tough draw? Wawrinka also beat Federer and Nadal in those first two Slams so it's not only Djokovic who was unable to stop him. People love to twist things to fit their narrative.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Even without Federer other players of his generation would be far from ATG level.
5 slam finals is just an example. Murray reached 11 slam finals dealing with 3 GOATs, not just 1.

Again, even if that’s true, what was Federer supposed to do about it? He could only beat who was in front of him - and as you say, older ATGs tend to lose against younger ones, so there’s no disgrace at losing to Nadal and Novak Djokovic in his later seasons...
 

maratha_warrior

Hall of Fame
It's ridiculous to try to compare Roddick and Hewitt with Murray, and then try to equate what they did with Federer at his peak to what Murray did to the big 3 at their peak. Roddick lost 15/16 times against Federer from 2001-2007 and Hewitt lost to Federer 15 straight times from 2004-2010. So if these two players can't even beat him in a 250 tournament, how in the hell are they good enough to defeat him in a Slam final? From 2005-2013 Murray never lost more than 3 matches in a row to Federer.

Also, who ever pushed Federer at his peak at Wimbledon before a final like Del Potro did to Djokovic in 2013? Only thing close to that was Del Potro at the Olympics and we saw how that turned out didn't we? Did Federer have to play multiple days before a RG final like Djokovic did in 2015 after going through a tough draw? Wawrinka also beat Federer and Nadal in those first two Slams so it's not only Djokovic who was unable to stop him. People love to twist things to fit their narrative.

None from that fanbase will be loyal to himself and reply to ur this message..
Instead they will write in another thread, that how djokovic lost to a Mug Andy Murray bla bla bla..
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
Again, even if that’s true, what was Federer supposed to do about it? He could only beat who was in front of him - and as you say, older ATGs tend to lose against younger ones, so there’s no disgrace at losing to Nadal and Novak Djokovic in his later seasons...
I just think his first 10 slams don't have a big value.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
I just think his first 10 slams don't have a big value.

First 10-12 slams Federer won are great achievement, but they are not comparable to super-human effort required for Djokovic and Nadal to win their slams. AO2017 is by far the most important win in his career. For me, Federer's last 8 slams are worth much more than his first 12 slams. Also, he had opportunity to win slams in the presence of Nadal and Djokovic and he did not win a single one for 5 years although that was his best version (as stated by Federer in August 2015).
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
Even without Federer other players of his generation would be far from ATG level.
5 slam finals is just an example. Murray reached 11 slam finals dealing with 3 GOATs, not just 1.
Just off the top of my head here a lot of SF Murray didn't face the Big 3. Ferrer, Berdych(3)Cilic, Jerzy, Wawrinka(2). I like Andy. But let's keep it real Lew. Also how many times do you think Federer stopped those guys in QF and SF to keep them from finals? I'm sure it's quite a bit. Haven't looked it up.
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
First 10-12 slams Federer won are great achievement, but they are not comparable to super-human effort required for Djokovic and Nadal to win their slams. AO2017 is by far the most important win in his career. For me, Federer's last 8 slams are worth much more than his first 12 slams. Also, he had opportunity to win slams in the presence of Nadal and Djokovic and he did not win a single one for 5 years although that was his best version (as stated by Federer in August 2015).

WI07 and UO07 were good wins. We can't say Djokovic and Nadal became good just when they started beating Fed, we would act like typical Fed fanatics.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
First 10-12 slams Federer won are great achievement, but they are not comparable to super-human effort required for Djokovic and Nadal to win their slams.

Superhuman effort... you mean, as when Nadal won 11 French Opens without facing a single clay ATG? Or when he won 3 US Opens with joke draws? :eek:
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Superhuman effort... you mean, as when Nadal won 11 French Opens without facing a single clay ATG? Or when he won 3 US Opens with joke draws? :eek:

When he beat Djokovic and Federer in slams many times, besides him 2 best players ever. Djokovic and Federer would pulverize any other player on clay at any time. He beat Federer in Wimbledon and Djokovic in USO. You can't have it tougher than that.
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
Superhuman effort... you mean, as when Nadal won 11 French Opens without facing a single clay ATG? Or when he won 3 US Opens with joke draws? :eek:

Federer and Djokovic are no.2 and no.3 ever in number of matches won at RG.

Here's another case of people who can't recognize ATGs as for Murray.
 

MS_07

Semi-Pro
As always, u show the side which is suitable to you, let's finish the list,



If any ATG was born in these years, joker's slam count would be in single digits.

He's no greater than agassi. Just a mug who vultured slems with no competition/ I wonder where mugzy was f apping in this whole time.


@Lew and you comfortably ignore the posts which blows you out of the discussion :-D
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
@Lew and you comfortably ignore the posts which blows you out of the discussion :-D

Djokovic's generation had Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga, Gasquet, Monfils, Anderson.

1989-96 being weaker doesn't mean Djoko had it easy.
 

MS_07

Semi-Pro
Djokovic's generation had Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych, Tsonga, Gasquet, Monfils, Anderson.

1989-96 being weaker doesn't mean Djoko had it easy.

Lol let's count M1000 for all other except nad/ muzza .. let's do it your way .. stats .. delpo and cilic are overhyped ..
fed fluked against them and they got a GS .. nothing else ..
 

vex

Legend
Sounds silly, does it not? Djokovic leads both H2H. Actually right now the domination of his main rivals is probably the main argument why Djokovic should be the greatest, probably because he (right now, may change) does not have anything else (sheer numbers like Federer or surface domination like Nadal). So he probably have the best H2H in history, right?

Lets take a look and put his numbers in historical context, shall we?

For reference I use 10 GOATs as per UTS (Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Borg).

Between those 10 players were 22 rivalries where one player won more matches than the other. 19 cases out of 22 (86,4 %) it was the younger ATG who won the rivalry. Younger ATGs won 59 % of all matches, while the older one just 41 %. Djokovic has just older ATGs, however is not nearly as good as the other ATGs were in putting them down. His winning percentage is 52,5 %, 6,5 % percentage points worse than "average" ATG. Not too good for supposed "H2H king".

Unluckilly for Djokovic this is not all. There is one more historical truth - younger ATGs are even more dominant in the most important matches - in grand slam tournaments. While they won 59 % of all matches, they also won 65,5 % (and 71,1 % if counting all ATGs but Djokovic) of GS matches and again 19 out of 22 (86,4 %) rivalries. The lost rivalries from perspective of younger ATG are: Becker/McEnroe (1 match), Agassi/Lendl (2 matches where Agassi was 18, respective 19. Did not play GS match ever since) and Djokovic/Nadal (15 matches)...
Djokovic played 29 matches against older ATGs and won just 14 of them (48,3 %). That is 17,2 percentage points worse than is ATGs average and even 21,8 % percentage points worse if we discount Djokovic from average (therefore he is almost 50 % worse than others are). He is also the only ATG who has negative collective H2H against older ATGs.

For reference here is winning percentage in GS (first) and overall for each player against older ATGs:
Connors 0 (no older OE ATG)
Borg 61 %, 65,2 %
McEnroe 69,2 %, 56,3 %
Lendl 61,1 %, 57 %
Becker 75 %, 66 %
Agassi 70 %, 57,1 %
Sampras 80 %, 63,6 %
Federer 80 %, 75 %
Nadal 76,9 %, 62,5 %
Djokovic 48,3 %, 52,5 %

This is a really superficial analysis. Djoker began his career by walking into the buzzsaw of Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal in their Primes. Thats a deep H2H hole you don't get to just ignore in any analysis. Once Fed exited his prime and Djoker entered his prime / figured out how to compete with Rafa his numbers speak for themselves.

And comparing Djoker's H2H numbers to Sampras, Agassi, ect is laughable. None of those guys played competition even a tier BELOW Djoker's competition, the #1 and #2 of all time... They were getting bounced from slams by far lesser talent than Djoker.

Come back to reality.

Not a Rafa fan, but these arguments are why I have to really give him respect. He caught Fed's absolute best at the beginning of his career (and wrecked him nonetheless) and then just when Fed exited his prime he gets Djoker, a guy 1 year younger than him and arguably more talented, roaring into his own prime. The fact that Rafa won as much as he did is a damn miracle and further emphasizes just how absurd he is on clay. We will never see a better clay tennis player than Rafa Nadal. Ever.
 
Last edited:
Top