Want to see how close the slam race actually was?

I tell you why Federer and Nadal couldn't be GOAT.

Federer had too few slams where he beat Djokovic and Nadal. After Djokovic became #1 in '11, Federer had ONE slam where he beat Djokovic, '12 WB. After that, Djokovic had FIVE slams where he beat Federer to win the championship (14, 15 & 19 WB, 15 US, 16 AO).

Nadal is the best clay champion ever. But over the 3 other slams, he had an ordinary record, 8/16.
 
SonnyT said:
I tell you why Federer and Nadal couldn't be GOAT.

Federer had too few slams where he beat Djokovic and Nadal. After Djokovic became #1 in '11, Federer had ONE slam where he beat Djokovic, '12 WB. After that, Djokovic had FIVE slams where he beat Federer to win the championship (14, 15 & 19 WB, 15 US, 16 AO).

Nadal is the best clay champion ever. But over the 3 other slams, he had an ordinary record, 8/16.
Click to expand...
Federer won 7 slams by defeating Novak or Nadal on the way to the title (4 times Novak, 3 times Nadal)

Nadal won 14 slams by defeating Novak or Federer on the way to the title (10 times Novak, 7 times Federer)

Novak won 14 slams by defeating Federer or Nadal on the way to the title (9 times Federer, 6 times Nadal)
 
SonnyT said:
I tell you why Federer and Nadal couldn't be GOAT.

Federer had too few slams where he beat Djokovic and Nadal. After Djokovic became #1 in '11, Federer had ONE slam where he beat Djokovic, '12 WB. After that, Djokovic had FIVE slams where he beat Federer to win the championship (14, 15 & 19 WB, 15 US, 16 AO).

Nadal is the best clay champion ever. But over the 3 other slams, he had an ordinary record, 8/16.
Click to expand...
Considering you said earlier that Djo was "not playing well" when he was beaten by Federer in 2012, I can only presume that more victories would come with further caveats. I can only imagine how useless and meaningless a victory over Djo the 2014 final would have been for Federer, given that this was a slamless-for-18-months version of Djo who held CP and would go on to lose to Nishikori at the USO.
 
FlyingSaucer said:
Considering you said earlier that Djo was "not playing well" when he was beaten by Federer in 2012, I can only presume that more victories would come with further caveats. I can only imagine how useless and meaningless a victory over Djo the 2014 final would have been for Federer, given that this was a slamless-for-18-months version of Djo who held CP and would go on to lose to Nishikori at the USO.
Click to expand...
You remember Djokovic got Becker to be coach at beginning of '14, which was the beginning of the all-conquering Novak. And it was only stopped when Novak got the elbow injury in the middle of '16.

zakopinjo said:
Federer won 7 slams by defeating Novak or Nadal on the way to the title (4 times Novak, 3 times Nadal)

Nadal won 14 slams by defeating Novak or Federer on the way to the title (10 times Novak, 7 times Federer)

Novak won 14 slams by defeating Federer or Nadal on the way to the title (9 times Federer, 6 times Nadal)
Click to expand...
Federer defeated Djokovic at 07 AO & US and 08 US. That was at least 3 years before Djokovic broke out in '11. In those years, Djokovic was just 19 & 20 year-old, and was in no position to win those slams.

Nadal often made victims of Federer & Djokovic at RG, which was easy for him. The only post-'11 non-clay slam that he got over Djokovic was '13 US.
 
SonnyT said:
You remember Djokovic got Becker to be coach at beginning of '14, which was the beginning of the all-conquering Novak. And it was only stopped when Novak got the elbow injury in the middle of '16.


Federer defeated Djokovic at 07 AO & US and 08 US. That was at least 3 years before Djokovic broke out in '11. In those years, Djokovic was just 19 & 20 year-old, and was in no position to win those slams.

Nadal often made victims of Federer & Djokovic at RG, which was easy for him. The only post-'11 non-clay slam that he got over Djokovic was '13 US.
Click to expand...

:-D :-D :-D :-D
 
SonnyT said:
You remember Djokovic got Becker to be coach at beginning of '14, which was the beginning of the all-conquering Novak. And it was only stopped when Novak got the elbow injury in the middle of '16.


Federer defeated Djokovic at 07 AO & US and 08 US. That was at least 3 years before Djokovic broke out in '11. In those years, Djokovic was just 19 & 20 year-old, and was in no position to win those slams.

Nadal often made victims of Federer & Djokovic at RG, which was easy for him. The only post-'11 non-clay slam that he got over Djokovic was '13 US.
Click to expand...
Meaning Becker effect and "grass peak" get shifted to 2015 if Djo loses that 2014 final.

Edit: Hah. If Fed had won any of those Wimbledon finals you hit him with with "can't beat Djo off grass" argument as you're doing here with Nadal and clay.
 
mike danny said:
Easy to claim 6 years means nothing when Djoker's best opponent 6 years younger was....Dominic Thiem. Who still went 2-1 up on Djokovic in their AO F. Now imagine if he was a vastly better player :D
Click to expand...
With all due respect Mike, but what you've posted is all hypothetical, and I think you are underestimating a bit pre-injury Dominic Thiem.
 
AO13 said:
With all due respect Mike, but what you've posted is all hypothetical, and I think you are underestimating a bit pre-injury Dominic Thiem.
Click to expand...

Pre-injury peak Dom Thiem particularly in finals is nowhere near peak big 3... he was right to say there was a vast difference.
 
So many believe it was luck. Lets find out.

If it was luck - which are the clips to demostrate moments when he tried to do the same but had no luck? You now that simple 'rule' of 50%-50%, aka 'luck'.

So, which are those 'unlucky Djokovic clips/moments?

Is it maybe 60-40 or 70-30 for Djokovic? Oh my, he broke math?
 
Last edited:
Any player can be lucky or unlucky in a single match or even in one tournament. But luck evens out over a career.

Nadal tops the list in point percentage for career. But Djokovic is only 100th of a percent lower. And points are highest on clay, in the middle on hard courts, and lowest on grass.

Next is Federer and after that Pete Sampras. Bear in mind that we don't have accurate statistics in this area before the 1990s. Andre Agassi is just below Pete Sampras.

Rather than talking about luck we should talk about facts.
 
Last edited:
Gary Duane said:
Any player can be lucky or unlucky in a single match or even in one tournament. But luck evens out over a career.

Nadal tops the list in point percentage one for career. But Djokovic is only 100th of a percent lower. And points are highest on clay, in the middle on hard courts, and lowest on grass.

Next is Federer and after that Pete Sampras. Bear in mind that we don't have accurate statistics in this area before the 1990s. Andre Agassi is just below Pete Sampras.

Rather than talking about luck we should talk about facts.
Click to expand...
StefanV said:
I like the ending of the Slam race.
Click to expand...
DSH said:
Djokovic's effectiveness winning Major titles:
12/40 in his 20s.
12/24 in his 30s
What does that tell you?
:sneaky:
Click to expand...

An Age Based Points System that can be followed @Kralingen @Hitman

Baby -> Age 18-19 -> 0.5 Point
Pre Peak -> Age 20-21 -> 2 Points
Peak -> Age 22-28 -> 4 Points
Post Peak but in Prime -> Age 29-30 -> 3 Points
Post Prime -> Age 31-32 -> 2.5 Points
Approaching old age -> Age 33-35 -> 2 points
Old age -> Age 36+ -> 0.5 point

Slams won at various ages can be graded based on these points used as multipliers

Djokovic - 1*2 + 11*4 + 5*2.5 + 6*2 + 1*0.5 = 71
Federer - 1*2 + 15*4 + 1*3 + 2*2 + 1*0.5 = 69.5
Nadal - 1*0.5 + 2*2 + 11*4 + 3*2.5 + 4*2 + 1*0.5 = 64.5
Sampras - 0.5 + 12*4 + 1*2.5 = 51

@DSH - Djokovic did not vulture as much as you think he did.
 
FlyingSaucer said:
Meaning Becker effect and "grass peak" get shifted to 2015 if Djo loses that 2014 final.

Edit: Hah. If Fed had won any of those Wimbledon finals you hit him with with "can't beat Djo off grass" argument as you're doing here with Nadal and clay.
Click to expand...
Well, if Federer beat him everywhere, I'd crowned him the GOAT.
 
The_Order said:
Pre-injury peak Dom Thiem particularly in finals is nowhere near peak big 3... he was right to say there was a vast difference.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I think he was quite good at AO 2020 and if it wasn't for his wrist injury, he'd be contender in 2021 and onwards at least at RG.
 
Razer said:
An Age Based Points System that can be followed @Kralingen @Hitman

Baby -> Age 18-19 -> 0.5 Point
Pre Peak -> Age 20-21 -> 2 Points
Peak -> Age 22-28 -> 4 Points
Post Peak but in Prime -> Age 29-30 -> 3 Points
Post Prime -> Age 31-32 -> 2.5 Points
Approaching old age -> Age 33-35 -> 2 points
Old age -> Age 36+ -> 0.5 point

Slams won at various ages can be graded based on these points used as multipliers

Djokovic - 1*2 + 11*4 + 5*2.5 + 6*2 + 1*0.5 = 71
Federer - 1*2 + 15*4 + 1*3 + 2*2 + 1*0.5 = 69.5
Nadal - 1*0.5 + 2*2 + 11*4 + 3*2.5 + 4*2 + 1*0.5 = 64.5
Sampras - 0.5 + 12*4 + 1*2.5 = 51

@DSH - Djokovic did not vulture as much as you think he did.
Click to expand...

Didn't expect Rafa to slip so far back, even before discounting for injury. LOL.
 
Djokovic has the highest career match winning % on the ATP tour and Nadal is 2nd. Is it a surprise then that they won a lot of matches and titles at Slams also?
 
socallefty said:
Djokovic has the highest career match winning % on the ATP tour and Nadal is 2nd. Is it a surprise then that they won a lot of matches and titles at Slams also?
Click to expand...

Nole also has the highest average opponent rank, the most top 10 wins with the highest win%.
Quite the mystery that the slam race is 'close'.
 
SonnyT said:
You remember Djokovic got Becker to be coach at beginning of '14, which was the beginning of the all-conquering Novak.
Click to expand...
Not really. It didn't get off to the best of starts, with Djokovic losing his Australian Open title to Wawrinka, and failing to beat Nadal at the French Open that year.

Before Becker coached Djokovic, in 2012-2013, Djokovic was pretty much dominating most of the smaller events, but not really delivering in the big matches in the majors by comparison.
 
AO13 said:
I agree, but I think he was quite good at AO 2020 and if it wasn't for his wrist injury, he'd be contender in 2021 and onwards at least at RG.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with that, Thiem at his best was a great player...

But the comparison was being made to Djok and Nadal who are all time greats...
 
mike danny said:
I mean, if he is the clutchest ever, how do you explain 2012-2014, him having a losing record in slam finals at one point, him losing the 2023 Wimb F against a grass rookie and him losing 12 slam finals?
Click to expand...

Ok, he's the clutchiest player SOME of the time. :cool:
 
mike danny said:
I mean, if he is the clutchest ever, how do you explain 2012-2014, him having a losing record in slam finals at one point, him losing the 2023 Wimb F against a grass rookie and him losing 12 slam finals?
Click to expand...

Mainad said:
Ok, he's the clutchiest player SOME of the time. :cool:
Click to expand...

Mike speaks as if slam finals grow on trees, lol.

Look, how many players reach slam finals 12 or more? Only 8.

Legends such as JMac, Edberg, Wilander, Murray, only 11, and Becker, 10.
 
Neptune said:
Mike speaks as if slam finals grow on trees, lol.

Look, how many players reach slam finals 12 or more? Only 8.

Legends such as JMac, Edberg, Wilander, Murray, only 11, and Becker, 10.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with reaching slam finals and losing, but surely the clutchest ever shouldn't go hand in hand with most slam final losses, right?
 
AO13 said:
With all due respect Mike, but what you've posted is all hypothetical, and I think you are underestimating a bit pre-injury Dominic Thiem.
Click to expand...
It is not hypothetical. Dominic Thiem is not just his toughest opponent 6 years younger, he is arguably his toughest opponent among the 90's born, period. Pretty easy under these circumstances to dismiss a 6 year age gap as insignificant.

Thiem was a very good player, but he was much easier to handle than a prime Djokovic and it's not close.
 
djoko proved many times in matches vs fred whos more clutch between two, yet discussion is still stronk, beautiful
 
mike danny said:
It is not hypothetical. Dominic Thiem is not just his toughest opponent 6 years younger, he is arguably his toughest opponent among the 90's born, period. Pretty easy under these circumstances to dismiss a 6 year age gap as insignificant.

Thiem was a very good player, but he was much easier to handle than a prime Djokovic and it's not close.
Click to expand...
Of course it is insignificant. If it was significant, prime Federer wouldn't lose 1:6 to baby Nadal in head-to-head duels.
 
mike danny said:
Guy was winning 81 straight matches on clay, so give me a break with this kid Nadal nonsense. Adults haven't managed that.
Click to expand...

Your theory about the importance of 6 years difference has failed. If it mattered, Federer would be leading 6:1 against Nadal and not the other way around.
 
zakopinjo said:
Your theory about the importance of 6 years difference has failed. If it mattered, Federer would be leading 6:1 against Nadal and not the other way around.
Click to expand...
I don't see how the specifics of one match-up that is entirely different from another match-up proves your point.

Fed had no age advantage over an already dominant Nadal on clay
 
Last edited:
mike danny said:
Other than 2011 USO and 2019 Wimb there weren't any other matches Fed should've won. He solved USO 2011 by winning 2012 Wimb.
Click to expand...

I don't have specific matches listed but fed would many times be ahead in a set or a match and then start making ufes.
mike danny said:
2019 Wimb was a tall order after not beating the guy at a major for 7 years. And he simply messed up the tiebreaks in that one and let's not be revisionist not and make Novak a better TB player. That match was an anomaly as Federer had never performed that poorly in tiebreaks against anyone at Wimb.
Click to expand...
But he pretty much had him beat, just didn't close it.
 
SonnyT said:
I tell you why Federer and Nadal couldn't be GOAT.

Federer had too few slams where he beat Djokovic and Nadal. After Djokovic became #1 in '11, Federer had ONE slam where he beat Djokovic, '12 WB. After that, Djokovic had FIVE slams where he beat Federer to win the championship (14, 15 & 19 WB, 15 US, 16 AO).

Nadal is the best clay champion ever. But over the 3 other slams, he had an ordinary record, 8/16.
Click to expand...

By ordinary, you mean greater record than anyone else in the open era apart from 3 people?
 
SonnyT said:
Federer defeated Djokovic at 07 AO & US and 08 US. That was at least 3 years before Djokovic broke out in '11. In those years, Djokovic was just 19 & 20 year-old, and was in no position to win those slams.
Click to expand...

Okay, and 2014 is when Nole started consistently beating Roger at the slams. That was ten years after Federer broke out way back in 2004.

Of course, 2014 should've been the breakout year of the 1st-generation NextGens, and there shouldn't have been many more late-round slam meetings between Djokovic and Federer. But the breakout never happened, so the now-clearly-in-Nole's-advantage slam meetings with Federer would happen 6 more times...four of them in finals.
 
Yes, it was extremely close and had a couple of points gone differently the slam race would look different now.

However, even if Federer had won Wimb 2019, he still wouldn't be the slam leader because there was no stopping Djokovic from winning 8 more slams against the 90's born anyway.
 
question will always be open of .. whos really the best, but we will never know the real answer unfortunately..
 
DSH said:
Djokovic's effectiveness winning Major titles:
12/40 in his 20s.
12/24 in his 30s
What does that tell you?
:sneaky:
Click to expand...

Well done.

There's no way an old, past prime player in his 30s can outperformed his own peak/prime years in his 20s. The only explanation is the depth and strength of the competition got real bad in the CIE. Djokovic decline but sadly tennis regress even further as 90's born players are incompetent to take over the tour. Tennis is moving forward as the 00's born players(Sinner, Alcaraz,...) will take over as the 90's born players have failed and getting old.

There has never, ever a decade(i.e. Federer, Sampras, Borg) and their contemporary at their prime years have allowed an old player dominate and rank #1 so such a long time.

Unless lightning strike twice, we will never see another such weak competition as the CIE
 
big ted said:
the margins are so small i think the big 3 are about equal. if anyones ahead statistically i think its mainly from djokovic just being the youngest
Click to expand...
Agree. He peaked later and sustained at age better and roger was way older. Nadal peaked before him. I think they are all 3 the goats and can't crown one of them goat. Fed dominted before the other 2 hit peak. Rafa peaked and then djoekr peaked shortly after and Fed was on the way out.

Nadal really was the only one that got stuck in the middle and caught the best of both of them and those 2 both had times they were peak without the other 2.
 
vokazu said:
Fed and Al Nadal busy chasing money, Djo busy helping lower ranked players to survive financially.
Click to expand...
He feels so bad for them he lives in Monte Carlo to avoid paying taxes in his own country. He really cares about helping others. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Interesting thread: what if the Big Three retained their peak level of tennis throughout their entire career without any decline?
Replies
19
Views
562
Sport
Sport
M
Let's play the game--what if the Big 3 were all born in 1981?
2
Replies
66
Views
3K
serve
S
M
Part 2 of What if the Big Three retained their peak level of tennis throughout their entire career without any decline? 2011 Djokovic's turn now
Replies
2
Views
275
Megafanoftennis100
M
F
How do Federer and Djokovic perform in their 30s if you swap their birthdays?
2
Replies
76
Views
2K
Silentchimera
Silentchimera
M
"it was decided in 1st set" -Losing a Tiebreaker in Grand Slam Quarterfinal/Semifinal/Final - Big 3
Replies
4
Views
641
Surion
S
Back
Top