When this guy is at his 80%, he cleans everyone off the court

OhYes

Legend
Except that nobody ever said Wawrinka is better than Djokovic. And there are more than enough players who are beating Nadal. Even Thiem now beats him every year on clay.
Not better in achievement department, but in level of his game.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Willander's arguments are probably based on Djokovic's H2H vs Fedal since 2011 and more so in recent years in slams, but obviously he is exaggerating big time with that 80 %.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Not because of Djokovic, but because how bad Murray usually plays in big matches. Do you honestly believe Murray in RG 2016 played better than Wawrinka did in RG 2015? Do you actually believe Murray GAVE A FIGHT in that final? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Obviously by career results and consistency Murray is much better than Wawrinka. But by peak level? Hell no. Wawrinka reached much higher peak level at all slams except Wimbledon. He pushed Djokovic in slams in 2014-2016 and had a few wins over him. What did Murray do in these years? Not only he never beat Djokovic in a slam, he also totally collapsed in almost all of their meetings. Even in AO 2015, who gave a better fight?
Murray has higher peak at Wimbeldon and USO
Wawrinka at RG
AO is a coin toss.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Don't think so.
AO 2010 QF vs Nadal?
AO 2012
AO 13 before blisters after set 2
Wawrinka AO 13/AO 14.
Maybe a slight edge to Stan ar best but not more IMO.
I think Djokovic was similar in AO 12 and 13 you had a 5 setter in both from both guys.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
AO 2010 QF vs Nadal?
AO 2012
AO 13 before blisters
Wawrinka AO 13/AO 14.
Maybe a slight edge to Stan ar best but not more IMO.
I would call USO a slight edge to Murray and AO a slightly bigger edge to Wawrinka. The biggest gap of all is at Wimbledon though.
 
Murray has higher peak at Wimbeldon and USO
Wawrinka at RG
AO is a coin toss.
In USO? Based on what? USO 2012 final was a low quality match. Murray also has a final in 2008 (and played a terrible final), other than that he is pretty much irrelevant at this slam. Wawrinka won in 2016, pushed a good Djokovic to five sets in 2013 and also beat Murray twice in USO.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
In USO? Based on what? USO 2012 final was a low quality match. Murray also has a final in 2008 (and played a terrible final), other than that he is pretty much irrelevant at this slam.
Best performance was the USO 2008 QF vs Nadal. USO 12 was not the best match but Murray played well and was on fire in the wind in the last set.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
No way IMO lol. That 2012 SF is so overrated, big patches of that were really error filled - at it's height sure but Stan's level in 13/14 was more sustained brilliance then any match I've seen from Murray there IMO.
Djokovic was not at his 2008/11/SF+F in 2016 and 2019 level but it was still a very good match even if the final was better and it gets a lot of credit. Errors are misleading the court was slow that year and both are crazy defenders. Djokovic started slow in AO 13 see from 1-1 to early in the 2nd and he was good in AO 14 but not his best clearly.
Fine,I can agree on a slight edge for Stan then based on sustained level but not going any higher. IMO the AO 2010 QF and AO 13 SF deserve a mention to as well.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Djokovic was not at his 2008/11/SF+F in 2016 and 2019 level but it was still a very good match even if the final was better and it gets a lot of credit. Errors are misleading the court was slow that year and both are crazy defenders.
Fine,I can agree on a slight edge for Stan then based on sustained level but not going any higher. IMO the AO 2010 QF and AO 13 SF deserve a mention to as well.
I said slight edge, but there's still a discernible difference IMO. I'm not sure 2012 was even better than 2013/2014 from Djokovic and in that case Stan gave Djokovic a tougher match then any from Murray and then beat him. And yes errors can be misleading but Murray at 80+ UE's is still telling IMO. I'm not saying that Murray sucks or anything, he's been great at the AO I just think beating Djokovic playing a true classic the year before should give him the edge.
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
You know what's coming next right?

Murray 0 titles
Stan 1 titles

Question was for their peaks...
I think you have a great peak if you reach 5 finals at one particular slam. Majority don't even come close of reaching 5 finals all slams combined.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I think you have a great peak if you reach 5 finals at one particular slam. Majority don't even come close of reaching 5 finals all slams combined.
That's consistency though...Not to mention that Stan was drawn in Djokovic'c half three years in a row.

It's all too transparent why you're going for Murray here "it's ok"
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
That's consistency though...Not to mention that Stan was drawn in Djokovic'c half three years in a row.

It's all too transparent why you're going for Murray here "it's ok"
Just consistency? It isn't just consistency. Ask a consistent guy like Ferrer why he couldn't amass more than one major final in his career.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Just consistency? It isn't just consistency. Ask a consistent guy like Ferrer why he couldn't amass more than one major final in his career.
Ask a consistent guy like Murray why he couldn't beat win the AO.

Peak...
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
I said slight edge, but there's still a discernible difference IMO. I'm not sure 2012 was even better than 2013/2014 from Djokovic and in that case Stan gave Djokovic a tougher match then any from Murray and then beat him. And yes errors can be misleading but Murray at 80+ UE's is still telling IMO. I'm not saying that Murray sucks or anything, he's been great at the AO I just think beating Djokovic playing a true classic the year before should give him the edge.
Fine then. I will go Stan slightly AO and clearly at RG then Murray slightly at USO and by a landslide at Wimbeldon.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
It's not about that.It's about that his level in 2011 in slams was not as high as most people think.2015-early 2016 is another story.
People always assume 2011 Federer beats 2015 Djokovic because he beat 11 Djokovic ignoring 2015 Djokovic was smarter and served better.
I think it is very close between 11 Djokovic and 15 Djokovic i think 11 Djokovic might have peaked a little higher but 15 Djokovic was more steady and consistent.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
People always assume 2011 Federer beats 2015 Djokovic because he beat 11 Djokovic ignoring 2015 Djokovic was smarter and served better.
I think it is very close between 11 Djokovic and 15 Djokovic i think 11 Djokovic might have peaked a little higher but 15 Djokovic was more steady and consistent.
It's a pitty that we didn't get to see Fed vs Djokovic in 2011 post USO to draw more accurate conclusions.2011 Fed won't beat 2015 Djokovic in slams imo, maybe except the French.
 

King No1e

Legend
It's a pitty that we didn't get to see Fed vs Djokovic in 2011 post USO to draw more accurate conclusions.2011 Fed won't beat 2015 Djokovic in slams imo, maybe except the French.
2011 Fed may have beaten 2011 Djoker, but that doesn't mean he would win 10/10 times. The same way you can't say Söderling owns the RG matchup vs Nadal. He was better on the day, that's it.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
People always assume 2011 Federer beats 2015 Djokovic because he beat 11 Djokovic ignoring 2015 Djokovic was smarter and served better.
I think it is very close between 11 Djokovic and 15 Djokovic i think 11 Djokovic might have peaked a little higher but 15 Djokovic was more steady and consistent.
One thing that is often overlooked is that Fed's backhand with the larger frame was more stable, expecially on the defence.Fed 2011 had a more potent forehand, but his backhand would be an even bigger liability against 2015-2016 Djokovic who hit long, powerful shots, on Feds backhand consistently, 2016 AO being a textbook example.That's why I don't think 2011 Fed would beat Djokovic 2015 in slams, at least outside the French.
 
What is this 50%-80% or whatever? How do you calculate the percentage? It looks like an excuse so every time Djokovic loses, his fans can put the excuse that "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Nadal in the US Open 2010 final: "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Federer in the Wimbledon 2012 semifinal: "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Nadal in the US Open 2013 final: "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Nadal in Rome 2019: "Djokovic was not at his best".

Djokovic almost lost to 37-year old Federer in the Wimbledon 2019 final: "Djokovic was subpar and not at his best".

With the "he was not at his best" excuse, almost every time Djokovic loses to Fedal is not valid. But if Djokovic defeats Fedal, they must be "at their best". This is how the "Djokovic has the highest level" legend was born.

Also, Nadal still leads the H2H over Djokovic 9-6 in Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open). So it is false that Djokovic doesn't have any problem with Nadal, as Wilander said.
Outstanding post (y)
 
What is this 50%-80% or whatever? How do you calculate the percentage? It looks like an excuse so every time Djokovic loses, his fans can put the excuse that "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Nadal in the US Open 2010 final: "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Federer in the Wimbledon 2012 semifinal: "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Nadal in the US Open 2013 final: "he was not at his best".

Djokovic loses to Nadal in Rome 2019: "Djokovic was not at his best".

Djokovic almost lost to 37-year old Federer in the Wimbledon 2019 final: "Djokovic was subpar and not at his best".

With the "he was not at his best" excuse, almost every time Djokovic loses to Fedal is not valid. But if Djokovic defeats Fedal, they must be "at their best". This is how the "Djokovic has the highest level" legend was born.

Also, Nadal still leads the H2H over Djokovic 9-6 in Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open). So it is false that Djokovic doesn't have any problem with Nadal, as Wilander said.
Nadal is no longer the presumed moral victor? :unsure:
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
I kind of agree with Wilander here. The numbers prove that Djokovic is the best ever. Leads in Grand Slam titles won, highest winning percentage (82.70%) and has no rival dominating him in Slams (Staminal is a myth).
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
That is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argumentum ad hominem: to assume that something is true only because an authority on the topic says so.

Authorities must prove their claims as everyone else. And Wilander's comments are merely his opinion, he doesn't prove anything with any data.
Wrong fallacy. You’re talking about appeal to authority. Ad hominem is an insult disguised as an argument.
 
There is something to be said for Djokovic being the most balanced or “complete” player. Doesn’t have a major weakness like Fed BH or Nadal serve and has taken impeccable care of his body so moves better than Nadal/Fed at the same age.
 
Novak was 100% at AO 2019 and made Nadal look like a rec player. That was the most painful beating I've seen Nadal take in a very long time.
In general Nadal doesn’t have as much ability to adapt his game mid match so he’s always had a habit of taking more beat downs than the other 2 when things aren’t going right. I think back to even prime Nadal getting crushed by Gonzo or Tsonga or Nalby. To be fair to him though he’s handed out similar beat downs to all his rivals on clay though
 
Top