The Weird World Of Men's Tennis: Djokovic's Wimbledon Finales...

[UnderratedSlam]

The guy beats RF - inarguably Wimbledon GOAT - in all three finales, AND beats Rafa twice, in a finale (and a semis)...

... Yet actually loses to Sir Mandy in straight sets in 2013.

The same Sir Mandy who lost all his Wimby encounters vs Rafa and Roger.

0-3 vs Rafa
0-2 vs Roger

That's 0-5 vs those two.

WTF?

Is Sir Mandy the luckiest multi-Wimby champ ever? He won two titles there but only had to win one match against the Big 3.

One measly, meiserly match.

It is a weird world after all...

 

[Breakpointerer]

MuryGOAT

 

[topher]

Murray made it to 10 straight Wimbledon QFs or better for 10 straight years, including 5 straight SFs or better that culminated in his 1st win there.

If Andy Roddick or Berdych or Raonic had mustered that level of consistency at Wimbledon, they likely would've gotten a slam there as well. If Rafa hadn't been a no-show for ~7 years of his prime there, he would no doubt have gotten another one or two as well.

Andy made his own luck imo. Not unlike Roger and Novak at RG.

 

[DSH]

 

[NoleFam]

Murray was better at Wimbledon in 2012-2016 so kudos to Federer for beating him. He had Federer on the ropes in 2012 before Federer turned that one around but Murray scorched him on Centre Court at the Olympics a few weeks later and he beat Djokovic too. 2013 was Djokovic's worst performance in a Wimbledon final but you still have to give credit to Murray for winning the title. I wouldn't call it luck really since he has beaten both Federer and Djokovic, the best grass players of his era.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Murray was better at Wimbledon in 2012-2016 so kudos to Federer for beating him. He had Federer on the ropes in 2012 before Federer turned that one around but Murray scorched him on Centre Court at the Olympics a few weeks later and he beat Djokovic too. 2013 was Djokovic's worst performance in a Wimbledon final but you still have to give credit to Murray for winning the title. I wouldn't call it luck really since he has beaten both Federer and Djokovic, the best grass players of his era.

Are you a defense lawyer by any chance?

That was pretty good.

I almost believed you there for a moment that Sir Mandy deserved two Wimbys...

 

[NoleFam]

Are you a defense lawyer by any chance?

That was pretty good.

I almost believed you there for a moment that Sir Mandy deserved two Wimbys...

Not even close to my profession (lol) but thanks for the compliment.

I think he does since he earned them.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Murray made it to 10 straight Wimbledon QFs or better for 10 straight years, including 5 straight SFs or better that culminated in his 1st win there.

If Andy Roddick or Berdych or Raonic had mustered that level of consistency at Wimbledon, they likely would've gotten a slam there as well. If Rafa hadn't been a no-show for ~7 years of his prime there, he would no doubt have gotten another one or two as well.

Andy made his own luck imo. Not unlike Roger and Novak at RG.

Roddick reached three finales.

That's pretty bloody good.

And a semis. And a QF.

If there was any justice in sports (and there isn't) Mandy Roddick would have one Wimby, and Sir Mandy one less.

As for FO, Novak deserves his FO more than RF deserves his. But both of them ultimately deserve to have FO, because they were so insanely good there for a decade or more.

 

[ibbi]

Federer, in the first of his 3 finals that he lost there to Djokovic was the same age (if my math is not failing me) as Djokovic was this year when he nearly lost to an almost 38 year old man.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Federer, in the first of his 3 finals that he lost there to Djokovic was the same age (if my math is not failing me) as Djokovic was this year when he nearly lost to an almost 38 year old man.

And your point is...?

 

[ibbi]

And your point is...?

You spent most of your OP talking about how Djokovic beats everyone at Wimbledon but lost to Muzza, my point is maybe beating a guy in 3 finals who is in his mid 30s is not all that impressive to begin with.

I definitely agree with the sentiment that Sir Andy has had "When the cats away" fortunes for a good few of the most major moments of his career, but as the saying goes you can only beat what is in front of you. The cat was (put) away at Roland Garros in 2015 too and Novak still couldn't finish the job.

 

[Sport]

On the contrary, Murray defeating in 3 sets Djokovic in a Wimbledon final proves how good he is on grass. I miss him on the tour.

By the way, Sir Andy Murray also defeated Djokovic in the Olympics 2012 on grass. So it was not luck.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You spent most of your OP talking about how Djokovic beats everyone at Wimbledon but lost to Muzza, my point is maybe beating a guy in 3 finals who is in his mid 30s is not all that impressive to begin with.

I definitely agree with the sentiment that Sir Andy has had "When the cats away" fortunes for a good few of the most major moments of his career, but as the saying goes you can only beat what is in front of you. The cat was (put) away at Roland Garros in 2015 too and Novak still couldn't finish the job.

You do realize that OLD MAN METHUSELAH reached those three finales by BEATING 6 OPPONENTS each time... right?

So he couldn't have been that bad... right?

Rolex didn't BUY him those 3 finales as a gift... right?

The age excuse only works if Novak keeps beating him as a no 1 beating a 25th-ranked player in early rounds.

Otherwise that "argument" has zero value.

The 2015 FO analogy you make is flawed: Novak was the one who put away the cat. Mandy didn't put any cats away in W16. The cat was taken by injury with large doses of luck helping a large mouse called Raonic.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

The guy beats RF - inarguably Wimbledon GOAT - in all three finales, AND beats Rafa twice, in a finale (and a semis)...

... Yet actually loses to Sir Mandy in straight sets in 2013.

The same Sir Mandy who lost all his Wimby encounters vs Rafa and Roger.

0-3 vs Rafa
0-2 vs Roger

That's 0-5 vs those two.

WTF?

Is Sir Mandy the luckiest multi-Wimby champ ever? He won two titles there but only had to win one match against the Big 3.

One measly, meiserly match.

It is a weird world after all...

You are grasping at straws, old fruit.

You seem to have an agenda to denigrate Sir Braveheart GOATray's achievements.

I don't understand why you seem to have such a hangup surrounding this embodiment of British greatness/excellence.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Murray made it to 10 straight Wimbledon QFs or better for 10 straight years, including 5 straight SFs or better that culminated in his 1st win there.

If Andy Roddick or Berdych or Raonic had mustered that level of consistency at Wimbledon, they likely would've gotten a slam there as well. If Rafa hadn't been a no-show for ~7 years of his prime there, he would no doubt have gotten another one or two as well.

Andy made his own luck imo. Not unlike Roger and Novak at RG.

If Murray made 10 straight quarters in 2003-12 instead, he'd likely remain wimbledonless. Same goes for the others of course. That would be seriously unlucky though. Mandrew is probably a bit lucky to win two wimbys, but one is a must given his consistency indeed.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You are grasping at straws, old fruit.

You seem to have an agenda to denigrate Sir Braveheart GOATray's achievements.

I don't understand why you seem to have such a hangup surrounding this embodiment of British greatness/excellence.

OK, so you showed up... as wuz to be expected, and none too pleased with this 100%-pure-fact thread which is even more predictable.

But where's the REAL MurrayFan GOATfan, Mainad?

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

You spent most of your OP talking about how Djokovic beats everyone at Wimbledon but lost to Muzza, my point is maybe beating a guy in 3 finals who is in his mid 30s is not all that impressive to begin with.

Interesting how Federer becomes the ordinary mid 30s guy whenever Djokovic gets the better of him in big matches.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Interesting how Federer becomes the ordinary mid 30s guy whenever Djokovic gets the better of him in big matches.

And not only that, but an ordinary journeyman almost-retiree who SOMEHOW reaches all these slam finales (and even vultures three when NovakGOAT is injured/struggling) while playing his tired sub-par post-prime/peak/shmeep useless game which totally lacks skills...

RF is amazing. Even when utterly sucking and utterly incompetent, he gets into Wimby finales... then miraculously becomes... even worse?

Perhaps I can beat him too. Hand me that racket...

 

[NoleFam]

Interesting how Federer becomes the ordinary mid 30s guy whenever Djokovic gets the better of him in big matches.

In finals no less. If it was the 4th round or QF, he may have a point.

 

[BGod]

Quite possibly the weirdest aspect of tennis history now is Djokovic being a 5 time, 5 time Wimbledon champion. Undoubtedly modern medicine/diet/exercise has allowed that to happen.

Seriously think for a moment a guy who won his 2nd Wimbledon at age 27 in a 5 setter goes on to win 3 more to match the likes of Borg and inch closer to Sampras. That's bananas.

As for Andy Murray, not at all that surprising. His consistency at the tournament was all-time but he had a bunch of buzzsaws in Federer, Nadal and guys like Roddick. He was at his peak in 2012-2013 and that just happened to coincide with a bit of a void on the surface as Federer was really the only big threat. Djokovic won in 2011 against Nadal okay, but he wasn't showing tremendously dominant form on grass, like Agassi did well on the surface too and won 1 title. I think if you want to look at previous similair situations you can take Rafter in 00-01 who could have won both of those finals but lost. 2016 was more a perfect storm for Murray but that happens when as someone else said, you're as consistent.

Put yourself in position to get lucky 10 times and you have statistically better odds than someone who's better than you but only puts themselves in position 3 times.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Quite possibly the weirdest aspect of tennis history now is Djokovic being a 5 time, 5 time Wimbledon champion. Undoubtedly modern medicine/diet/exercise has allowed that to happen.

Seriously think for a moment a guy who won his 2nd Wimbledon at age 27 in a 5 setter goes on to win 3 more to match the likes of Borg and inch closer to Sampras. That's bananas.

True, I thought it was strange that Novak Djokovic had 3 Wimbledons. To have matched Borg on 5 is just bizarre.

 

[NoleFam]

Quite possibly the weirdest aspect of tennis history now is Djokovic being a 5 time, 5 time Wimbledon champion. Undoubtedly modern medicine/diet/exercise has allowed that to happen.

Seriously think for a moment a guy who won his 2nd Wimbledon at age 27 in a 5 setter goes on to win 3 more to match the likes of Borg and inch closer to Sampras. That's bananas.

As for Andy Murray, not at all that surprising. His consistency at the tournament was all-time but he had a bunch of buzzsaws in Federer, Nadal and guys like Roddick. He was at his peak in 2012-2013 and that just happened to coincide with a bit of a void on the surface as Federer was really the only big threat. Djokovic won in 2011 against Nadal okay, but he wasn't showing tremendously dominant form on grass, like Agassi did well on the surface too and won 1 title. I think if you want to look at previous similair situations you can take Rafter in 00-01 who could have won both of those finals but lost. 2016 was more a perfect storm for Murray but that happens when as someone else said, you're as consistent.

Put yourself in position to get lucky 10 times and you have statistically better odds than someone who's better than you but only puts themselves in position 3 times.

Federer also won 3 Wimbledons at 28 and older. Can't really say it's weird Djokovic has five when he won 3/5 or 4/6, and won as many Wimbledons this decade as all other players combined.

 

[ibbi]

You do realize that OLD MAN METHUSELAH reached those three finales by BEATING 6 OPPONENTS each time... right?

So he couldn't have been that bad... right?

Rolex didn't BUY him those 3 finales as a gift... right?

The age excuse only works if Novak keeps beating him as a no 1 beating a 25th-ranked player in early rounds.

Otherwise that "argument" has zero value.

The 2015 FO analogy you make is flawed: Novak was the one who put away the cat. Mandy didn't put any cats away in W16. The cat was taken by injury by a large mouse called Raonic.

I'm not suggesting that Federer was useless, though not many of the opponents he beat en route to most of these 3 finals were very good. I'm still getting a good laugh out of the year he just seemed to beat a bunch of useless Brits one after the other. I forget if that was the same one or a different one where his draw would have probably been really good if it had been at Roland Garros rather than Wimbledon...

But I digress... He wasn't bad, no, the guy made those finals, but the fact this guy pushed the number 1 player in the world as far as he did in both 2014 and 2019 is pretty embarrassing. It's embarrassing for the state of the game that he made all those finals, it's embarrassing for the number 1 player in the world that he couldn't put him away any easier than he did.

And yes, the analogy is flawed, but I'm not defending Murray He definitely vultured those two Wimbledons, but someone had to vulture them, and the fact he vultured them both is testament to the fact that he is in fact a class apart from the rest of the pack, if not in league with his betters. I'd say Nadal's a fairly lucky multi-time Wimbledon champ, no? Berdych did the harder work in 2010 and he ran off with the title. '

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

He should renounce 2014 and 2019 titles for not putting gramps away earlier to be honest. Such an embarrassment.

At least Fedr's BUNNIES peers showed a GREAT LEVEL OF PLAY at Wimbledon according to THE EYE TEST.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I'm not suggesting that Federer was useless, though not many of the opponents he beat en route to most of these 3 finals were very good. I'm still getting a good laugh out of the year he just seemed to beat a bunch of useless Brits one after the other. I forget if that was the same one or a different one where his draw would have probably been really good if it had been at Roland Garros rather than Wimbledon...

But I digress... He wasn't bad, no, the guy made those finals, but the fact this guy pushed the number 1 player in the world as far as he did in both 2014 and 2019 is pretty embarrassing. It's embarrassing for the state of the game that he made all those finals, it's embarrassing for the number 1 player in the world that he couldn't put him away any easier than he did.

And yes, the analogy is flawed, but I'm not defending Murray He definitely vultured those two Wimbledons, but someone had to vulture them, and the fact he vultured them both is testament to the fact that he is in fact a class apart from the rest of the pack, if not in league with his betters. I'd say Nadal's a fairly lucky multi-time Wimbledon champ, no? Berdych did the harder work in 2010 and he ran off with the title. '

Analyze your words carefully...

If it is EMBARRASSING that RF made all these finales, then what are you saying is that RF is NOWHERE NEAR being GOAT.

Because - and listen well - if he's GOAT then he is GOAT for a reason, regardless whether he is 25 or 34 (coz at 38 he is still top 3 out of 1000s of players), hence beating/playing him in a slam finale cannot be considered embarrassing for anyone involved.

Now... either he is a crap overrated pseudo-GOAT or he is GOAT who played great during this decade. Pick yer poison.

Of course, if you pick the latter option, what does that say about Novak?

You are stuck between a rock and a hard place, as all Fedfans who denigrate Novak and Rafa are... Logic never loses.

 

[DSH]

I'm not suggesting that Federer was useless, though not many of the opponents he beat en route to most of these 3 finals were very good. I'm still getting a good laugh out of the year he just seemed to beat a bunch of useless Brits one after the other. I forget if that was the same one or a different one where his draw would have probably been really good if it had been at Roland Garros rather than Wimbledon...

But I digress... He wasn't bad, no, the guy made those finals, but the fact this guy pushed the number 1 player in the world as far as he did in both 2014 and 2019 is pretty embarrassing. It's embarrassing for the state of the game that he made all those finals, it's embarrassing for the number 1 player in the world that he couldn't put him away any easier than he did.

And yes, the analogy is flawed, but I'm not defending Murray He definitely vultured those two Wimbledons, but someone had to vulture them, and the fact he vultured them both is testament to the fact that he is in fact a class apart from the rest of the pack, if not in league with his betters. I'd say Nadal's a fairly lucky multi-time Wimbledon champ, no? Berdych did the harder work in 2010 and he ran off with the title. '

Please, Fed was vulnerable since round 1(remember his match against Falla) and it was only a matter of time that he was going to be defeated when he had a rival that could exploit his low form.
There is no luck for Nadal in winning 2 Wimbledon, especially if we consider that he could win at least two more editions: Wimbledon 2007 (where Federer acknowledged having had much luck that time) and Wimbledon 2018, where the winner of the title was decided in the extremely close semifinal between Spaniard and Djokovic.
Not to mention the 2006, 2011 and 2019 editions.
There is no luck as you incorrectly point.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Super weird and messy

 

[Fedforever]

Here's a radical idea.

Every player who beats everyone else in a tournament is the deserved winner in that year unless he's taking drugs or gets his opponents kneecapped. It doesn't matter whether he would have won it in any other year or not, it might be fun to speculate whether 2011 Djoko would have beaten 2008 Nadal or whatever but it doesn't matter a d*mn. Nadal was the deserved winner in 2008, Djoko in 2011 and 2019, Fed in 2006, Murray in 2013 and even that w*nker Cash in 1987. Because they beat everyone else in that year.

With this radical new concept we could transform this place into a happy fun-filled zone of peace and love.

 

[Mainad]

The guy beats RF - inarguably Wimbledon GOAT - in all three finales, AND beats Rafa twice, in a finale (and a semis)...

... Yet actually loses to Sir Mandy in straight sets in 2013.

The same Sir Mandy who lost all his Wimby encounters vs Rafa and Roger.

0-3 vs Rafa
0-2 vs Roger

That's 0-5 vs those two.

WTF?

Is Sir Mandy the luckiest multi-Wimby champ ever? He won two titles there but only had to win one match against the Big 3.

One measly, meiserly match.

It is a weird world after all...

He's just better on grass than Djokovic. He also beat him in straight sets the previous year in the Olympic semi-final before beating the grass GOAT in straight sets in the final. Both matches took place on Centre Court at Wimbledon too.

Live with it!

 

[Mainad]

The 2015 FO analogy you make is flawed: Novak was the one who put away the cat. Mandy didn't put any cats away in W16. The cat was taken by injury with large doses of luck helping a large mouse called Raonic.

He put away a former Wimbledon finalist in the semis, a guy who had put away both Roger and Novak to get there. Nice try but still no cigar.

 

[NoleFam]

He's just better on grass than Djokovic. He also beat him in straight sets the previous year in the Olympic semi-final before beating the grass GOAT in straight sets in the final. Both matches took place on Centre Court at Wimbledon too.

Live with it!

Hold on now..let's not get too carried away..lol

 

[Mainad]

Hold on now..let's not get too carried away..lol

I meant in terms of their personal H2H. Novak failed to take a set off Andy in either of their grass encounters.

 

[dropshotlikeitshot]

Can’t forget the difference in the 2013 semis. Djokovic won a 5 set epic over Delpo while Murray won in straights over Janowicz. Freshness gave Murray an advantage and while that’s no proof that Djokovic would have won the final had he also won his semi in straights, I highly doubt he would have lost the final in straights.

 

[NoleFam]

I meant in terms of their personal H2H. Novak failed to take a set off Andy in either of their grass encounters.

Yes, Andy was better on the day in those two matches.

 

[BGod]

Federer also won 3 Wimbledons at 28 and older. Can't really say it's weird Djokovic has five when he won 3/5 or 4/6, and won as many Wimbledons this decade as all other players combined.

Federer won 5 Wimbledons prior to 28 though. He actually won 5 just shy of turning 26. So no, that's not a good comparison. As for winning Wimbledons in the 2010s, the field as has been criticized is noticeably weaker.

Can’t forget the difference in the 2013 semis. Djokovic won a 5 set epic over Delpo while Murray won in straights over Janowicz. Freshness gave Murray an advantage and while that’s no proof that Djokovic would have won the final had he also won his semi in straights, I highly doubt he would have lost the final in straights.

Same as Federer beating Delpo in an epic semifinal at the Olympics. Absolutely plays a part at these levels for recovery. Changes strategy.

 

[NoleFam]

Federer won 5 Wimbledons prior to 28 though. He actually won 5 just shy of turning 26. So no, that's not a good comparison. As for winning Wimbledons in the 2010s, the field as has been criticized is noticeably weaker.



Same as Federer beating Delpo in an epic semifinal at the Olympics. Absolutely plays a part at these levels for recovery. Changes strategy.

And Djokovic had won 2 before he was 28. It's not like he just starting winning them at that age. How exactly is the Wimbledon field in the 2010s noticeably weaker especially in comparison to the decade prior? If anything it was the opposite.

 

[BGod]

And Djokovic had won 2 before he was 28. It's not like he just starting winning them at that age. How exactly is the Wimbledon field in the 2010s noticeably weaker especially in comparison to the decade prior? If anything it was the opposite.

Quality of matches and statistical consistency of top players.

The 2000s you had Fed in his prime, a better version of Nadal on grass. Roddick, Hewitt a now forgotten but very solid Ancic. And at the two ends you still had Sampras in 00-01 with Henman and Djokovic at the tail end with Berdych & Tsonga.

The 2010s basically had Murray, a largely absent Nadal, older Federer and Djokovic. I think Berdych & Raonic are only other guys to make 2 Semifinals in the decade if I'm not mistaken.

 

[King No1e]

Because Djokovic really transformed into a grass court god in 2014. Except for 2011 where he was unstoppable, pre-Becker Djokovic was inconsistent on grass.

 

[Incognito]

Because Djokovic really transformed into a grass court god in 2014. Except for 2011 where he was unstoppable, pre-Becker Djokovic was inconsistent on grass.

unstoppable is when you don’t lose a set the whole tournament. I remember him losing a set to a mentally broken Nadal in the final with ankle issues, and to Tomic of all people.

Federer at 2007 AO and 2017 wimbledon was unstoppable, Nadal at RG 2008, 2010, 2017 was also unstoppable.

 

[duaneeo]

Interesting how Federer becomes the ordinary mid 30s guy whenever Djokovic gets the better of him in big matches.

And it's interesting how Federer becomes the still-in-his-prime ageless guy whenever Djokovic gets the better of him in big matches.

 

[NoleFam]

Quality of matches and statistical consistency of top players.

The 2000s you had Fed in his prime, a better version of Nadal on grass. Roddick, Hewitt a now forgotten but very solid Ancic. And at the two ends you still had Sampras in 00-01 with Henman and Djokovic at the tail end with Berdych & Tsonga.

The 2010s basically had Murray, a largely absent Nadal, older Federer and Djokovic. I think Berdych & Raonic are only other guys to make 2 Semifinals in the decade if I'm not mistaken.

The 2000s had some of the weakest Wimbledon runs in the Open Era: Sampras in 2000 and Hewitt in 2002. Not to mention that Ancic was mostly a non-factor at Wimbledon, making only one SF. Henman was a good grass player but his role was always to play groomsman to the best grass players. Besides Federer, Nadal, Roddick and Hewitt there weren't many great grass players that decade after the Sampras era. Clearly the 2010s were stronger with Djokovic, Federer, Nadal and Murray all winning Wimbledon this decade and making multiple finals, along with Berdych and Tsonga playing spoiler and upsetting them at times. Not to mention Raonic, Del Potro and Cilic in the mix as well. Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga, Berdych, Roanic all made at least 2 SFs this decade, with Cilic a match point away from doing it as well.

 

[JaoSousa]

The 2000s had some of the weakest Wimbledon runs in the Open Era: Sampras in 2000 and Hewitt in 2002. Not to mention that Ancic was mostly a non-factor at Wimbledon, making only one SF. Henman was a good grass player but his role was always to play groomsman to the best grass players. Besides Federer, Nadal, Roddick and Hewitt there weren't many great grass players that decade after the Sampras era. Clearly the 2010s were stronger with Djokovic, Federer, Nadal and Murray all winning Wimbledon this decade and making multiple finals, along with Berdych and Tsonga playing spoiler and upsetting them at times. Not to mention Raonic, Del Potro and Cilic in the mix as well. Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga, Berdych, Roanic all made at least 2 SFs this decade, with Cilic a match point away from doing it as well.

Cilic lol

 

[upchuck]

It's well known that 2012, 2013 and 2014 were odd years for him: he was the default best player in the world during that period, but often underperformed terribly in the latter stages of slams, especially against other Big 4 players. 2011 and post-2014 have been very different for him in this regard.

 

[Druss]

I’m quite certain the exhaustive SF Djokovic played vs Delpo in 2013 had something to do with his poor finale showing. As someone else pointed out before, if you are that consistent over such a long period, making SFs and finals for 8+ years, you’re bound to be rewarded with a little luck at some stage. Can’t really begrudge Murray for winning 3 slams.

 

[Enceladus]

He's just better on grass than Djokovic. He also beat him in straight sets the previous year in the Olympic semi-final before beating the grass GOAT in straight sets in the final. Both matches took place on Centre Court at Wimbledon too.

Live with it!

Murray is not better on the grass than Djoker. Also, Nadal is not better than Federer on the outdoor hard surface, although he leads 8:6 in balance. Federer is more successful on outdoor hard surface drive than Nadal. And Djoker is more successful on the grass than Murray. H2H on the grass shows that in terms of matchup, Djoker for Murray suited on the grass.

Djoker didn't get the opportunity to return Murray's losses from 2012-13. I believe that if they met in the Wimbledon 2015 final, Djoker would win.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

And it's interesting how Federer becomes the still-in-his-prime ageless guy whenever Djokovic gets the better of him in big matches.

Federer being old since 2008 sounds much better. He was actually born old when you think about it...

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

As for FO, Novak deserves his FO more than RF deserves his

How exactly?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

He's just better on grass than Djokovic. He also beat him in straight sets the previous year in the Olympic semi-final before beating the grass GOAT in straight sets in the final. Both matches took place on Centre Court at Wimbledon too.

Live with it!

Which is why he is 1-5 vs Big 3 at Wimby?

He is BETTER on grass than 5-time champs?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

He put away a former Wimbledon finalist in the semis, a guy who had put away both Roger and Novak to get there. Nice try but still no cigar.

Oh you mean that silly logic that goes like:

A beat B, and B beat C, and C beat D, and coz D beat E A is better than E.

That semis is so LEGENDARY I actually have to Google it...

Wait...

(1 minute later...)

Birdy???

You're kidding, right?

That's Andy's claim to 2016 fame?

 

[UnderratedSlam]

How exactly?

You know exactly how...

Spoiler

He beat Rafa at FO, pushed him another time to 5 sets, beat him 6-7 times on clay compared to RF's two times. RF never beat him at FO. That's why.