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

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.
Murray was good in that match but Nadal was still playing way too defensively on HC at that stage, was exploitable by people willing to take risks against him.
 

The Fedfather

Hall of Fame
Wilander is known to say things and phrase his opinions (whether real or not) in a way that is sure to spark arguments and draw attention to his persona. This one is not an exception. The people who realy believe that Wilander's deliberately controversial comments are based on expertise are naive.
 

JaoSousa

Rookie
This isn't complicated. When everyone is healthy and showing good enough form to reach the latter rounds of a tournament, Djokovic is the one you most expect to be the last man standing at the end of the event because of his peak abilities, not Nadal, not Federer. We've seen it happen enough times to know that it is true.

Consider the current context. Medvedev has made many consecutive finals, showing tremendous consistency. Nadal won the US Open and has the best win-loss percentage of the year. But does anyone think either of them is the de facto best player in the world or the sport's most fearsome prospect? No, and the reason why is Djokovic.
Dude, you have been watching tennis for like 5 years
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Matches won

2004-09 Federer 89.66%
2011-16 Djokovic 89.52%
2008-13 Nadal 86.75%

Opponent's average ranking

2011-16 Djokovic 18.4
2008-13 Nadal 22.9
2004-09 Federer 26.3

2011-16 Djokovic had a similar win percentage to 2004-09 Federer despite facing much higher ranked opponents.
 

JaoSousa

Rookie
Djokovic was in his prime RG 2015. He got beat by stan. He was in his prime RG 2011. And Fed beat him(Fed also played unbelievable but still)
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Losing record against Fed till Fed hit 34/35

Lost to Rafa 5 or 6 consecutive times ?
Sorta hard to recoop a losing record someone stacked against you as a child. Credit to Novak for getting it done.

Edit: Also beat prime Rafa 7 times consecutive, a streak that includes clay, just like Fed, right? ROFLMAO
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Sorta hard to recoop a losing record someone stacked against you as a child. Credit to Novak for getting it done.

Edit: Also beat prime Rafa 7 times consecutive, a streak that includes clay, just like Fed, right? ROFLMAO
LMAO . Fed barely met Novak before he hit 30. Most of their matches feature old Fed
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Matches won

2004-09 Federer 89.66%
2011-16 Djokovic 89.52%
2008-13 Nadal 86.75%

Opponent's average ranking

2011-16 Djokovic 18.4
2008-13 Nadal 22.9
2004-09 Federer 26.3

2011-16 Djokovic had a similar win percentage to 2004-09 Federer despite facing much higher ranked opponents.
Fringe players of prior decade - Ferrer, Stan became No 3 in this decade

That tells the story
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Which shows that Rafa is a billion times better than Novak at Roland Garros doesn't it? And it means Novak isn't unbeatable or even close to it is on clay, right? So therefore Novak is not even close to being a near perfect player. You can't only have 1 RG title while your main rival has 12 RG titles and claim to be the most perfect player in tennis. LOL
As a Novak fan I agree that he is not a perfect player or superior to Rafa or Roger, overall. Rafa has dominated everyone on clay the past 12 years, at least. Novak has dominated Rafa on hard courts, overall. Roger and Novak are about equal on hard courts, Novak slightly better than Roger on clay. Though Roger is probably better than Novak on grass, overall, he has lost 3 Wimbledon finals to Novak. In the end the big 3 are about equal in overall achievements, IMO.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
As a Novak fan I agree that he is not a perfect player or superior to Rafa or Roger, overall. Rafa has dominated everyone on clay the past 12 years, at least. Novak has dominated Rafa on hard courts, overall. Roger and Novak are about equal on hard courts, Novak slightly better than Roger on clay. Though Roger is probably better than Novak on grass, overall, he has lost 3 Wimbledon finals to Novak. In the end the big 3 are about equal in overall achievements, IMO.
Federer has the most achievements for now because of slams and YEC. But it is getting closer and closer.
 

OhYes

Legend
I'd have to say Djokovic has easily the highest peak from what I've witnessed. I missed Federer's peak, but have seen some highlights. While Federer's game is much more beautiful, I think Djokovic peaked the highest.
I like honest posters. :)
 
Rafa wiped the floor with Djokovic at 2010 US Open and 2013 US Open, despite Djokovic putting 100% of his mind, body and soul into it.
Djokovic only won 2011 US Open because Rafa was too low on confidence to go down-the-line that year.
Djokovic has no control over Rafa at the US Open, zero control :)
If the courts weren’t as slow as clay, Fed would’ve won 2010 and 2011 USO :)
 

Genious at Work

Hall of Fame
Mats Wilander:

"When he’s at his best, I think he breaks the world record in how good you can play tennis. He does it on every surface, and does it against every match-up.

He doesn’t have a problem with Nadal or a problem with Roger Federer. The other two always had that, and he doesn’t. And he does it against any style of player, doesn’t matter if it’s a big-server, it doesn’t matter if it’s [Roberto] Bautista Agut, doesn’t matter if it’s clay, or grass, or hard court.

He’s basically the only one I think that looks unbeatable for longer periods of time”. Before the final against Roger Federer, Wilander had said: “The problem with Novak for everybody is that we have not seen 50 per cent of his ability so far.

You see 80 per cent at times, and then he cleans them off the court. And then he goes down to 40, because he doesn’t really – I don’t know, he couldn’t be bothered, because he’s too good. It’s like he’s not fully into it because I think he knows he’s so much better than most of them, especially here."


I have to agree with him. Deep down you know it is true also.
Maybe he only gives 80% max, but if he ends up with only 95% of the slams of Nadal/Federer he will be a total loser. I'm 100% sure of this.
 

Genious at Work

Hall of Fame
And if Fedal get 50% of Novak's draws, I am 100% sure that they wouldn't have double digit slam number.
Yeah, because Nadal does so poorly against Djoker in slams. :unsure:

I guess this goes to show that he probably plays only 60% at slams and maybe raises his level for 500 level events. Mastermind.

Now imagine 38yo Djokovic playing 32yo Fed in Wimbledon.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Novak is pretty consistent but I wouldn’t take him over Fedal for highest peak except Australian open where he dominates.
 

daggerman

New User
Yeah, because Nadal does so poorly against Djoker in slams. :unsure:

I guess this goes to show that he probably plays only 60% at slams and maybe raises his level for 500 level events. Mastermind.

Now imagine 38yo Djokovic playing 32yo Fed in Wimbledon.
OK. Now imagine 20yo Djokovic playing 26yo Fed at the US Open
 
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.
Murray gifted the fourth set in 2012 SF and the end of the fifth was an erratic mess. Stan choked the second set in 2013 as it was his first stanimal try, yet clutched TB to fifth and pushed Djokovic to 12-10 with plenty of big rallies. No comparison olololol.
 

papertank

Hall of Fame
Everyone can be beaten, even at their best. Djokovic you can look to his losses to Wawrinka and Murray in GS finals, or to Nadal on clay.

He is definitely the most well-rounded player ever, though. There’s no “go-to” strategy to beat him. You just have to go toe to toe with him and somehow end up on top.
 

OhYes

Legend
Yeah, because Nadal does so poorly against Djoker in slams. :unsure:

I guess this goes to show that he probably plays only 60% at slams and maybe raises his level for 500 level events. Mastermind.

Now imagine 38yo Djokovic playing 32yo Fed in Wimbledon.
Should I also imagine Rafa playing every slam which Djokovic plays too and goes deep enough so they could meet ?
Can I also imagine Novak's parents as employees of largest and wealthiest pharmaceutical company in human history ?
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Murray gifted the fourth set in 2012 SF and the end of the fifth was an erratic mess. Stan choked the second set in 2013 as it was his first stanimal try, yet clutched TB to fifth and pushed Djokovic to 12-10 with plenty of big rallies. No comparison olololol.
What about Djokovic being below par after Stan broke him in the first up until he broke back in the 2nd and the slow start I agreed in the end Wawrinka was a little better with NatF but I disagree it’s not a comparison level wise.
 
What about Djokovic being below par after Stan broke him in the first up until he broke back in the 2nd and the slow start I agreed in the end Wawrinka was a little better with NatF but I disagree it’s not a comparison level wise.
Murray takes sets off a subpar Djokovic 6-3 and 6-4, Stan almost made it 6-1 6-3 :)
 
Mats Wilander:

"When he’s at his best, I think he breaks the world record in how good you can play tennis. He does it on every surface, and does it against every match-up.

He doesn’t have a problem with Nadal or a problem with Roger Federer. The other two always had that, and he doesn’t. And he does it against any style of player, doesn’t matter if it’s a big-server, it doesn’t matter if it’s [Roberto] Bautista Agut, doesn’t matter if it’s clay, or grass, or hard court.

He’s basically the only one I think that looks unbeatable for longer periods of time”. Before the final against Roger Federer, Wilander had said: “The problem with Novak for everybody is that we have not seen 50 per cent of his ability so far.

You see 80 per cent at times, and then he cleans them off the court. And then he goes down to 40, because he doesn’t really – I don’t know, he couldn’t be bothered, because he’s too good. It’s like he’s not fully into it because I think he knows he’s so much better than most of them, especially here."


I have to agree with him. Deep down you know it is true also.
Except over 5 sets v Nadal. Djokovic achilles heel is facing Nadal over 5 sets which is why he is 6-9 and even 1-2 at USO.

On clay djokovic cannot trouble Nadal at his best even over 3 sets so wilander is getting carried away one feels but certainly on hard courts over 3 sets i think Djokovic at his best is untouchable.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
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?
In 2015-16 (2014 doesn't count because Murray was still struggling to recover from his back surgery), Murray beat Djokovic in the finals of 2 Masters 1000 and a WTF and ended up taking away his #1 ranking. So that's what he did! :cool:
 

TennisFan3

Legend
Djokovic at his BEST dominates Fed and Nadal. He's better than both - that's the reality.
However Djokovic HAS a problem with Wawrinka. A BIG MATCHUP problem. So while a peak Wawrinka may NOT beat Fedal, the Swiss will MOST LIKELY beat Novak.
So in reality, only a peak Wawrinka could beat a peak Novak. Fedal certainly cannot. (Exception clay: Where a peak Nadal beats peak Novak).

Maybe Medvedev is the player who might beat peak Novak in the future. Although that remains to be seen. I think tennis from 2020-2023 - will be defined by the Novak - Medvedev rivalry.
If Novak manages to dominate Medvedev - the Serb will get to the most slams by any tennis player regardless of gender. Meaning he will beat Margaret Court's 24 major record.

Medvedev is really the only threat to stop Novak in the next few years, otherwise we are looking at 3+ Novak slams every year and perhaps a CYGS, as Fedal fade and retire + no new competition.
 
Last edited:

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
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.
There are ZERO excuses for defeats, unless injuries are part of the loss. All the losses you listed he lost fair and square.

As for Nadal-Djokovic, that rivalry was tilted toward Nadal for the first 4-5 years, but since 2011 the W/L score has been heavily in favour of Novak, not even on clay does Rafa dominate anymore. Rafa - playing a top-notch Novak - is often clueless how to play him. Hence what Wilander said isn't incorrect.
 

daggerman

New User
AND that is not even 50% of their total meetings

LOL calling that a fair rivalry
This is a pretty dishonest position. It's obviously very nearly 50% of their total meetings. 23/48 = 47.9%. Whether it's exactly 50% isn't relevant.

Moreover, the 24th meeting occurred at the 2011 US Open, about a month after Roger's 30th birthday.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
This is a pretty dishonest position. It's obviously very nearly 50% of their total meetings. 23/48 = 47.9%. Whether it's exactly 50% isn't relevant.

Moreover, the 24th meeting occurred at the 2011 US Open, about a month after Roger's 30th birthday.
And since all Big 3 won many slams after turning 30...

... the entire prime/peak/shmeep Excuse Factory is utter nonsense.
 
In 2015-16 (2014 doesn't count because Murray was still struggling to recover from his back surgery), Murray beat Djokovic in the finals of 2 Masters 1000 and a WTF and ended up taking away his #1 ranking. So that's what he did! :cool:
In WTF it was a very good win. However, at the masters it wasn't impressive. He won their match in Rome 2016 only to bring a terrible performance in RG final a few weeks later. Djokovic always ends up winning the matches that really matter.
 
Djokovic at his BEST dominates Fed and Nadal. He's better than both - that's the reality.
However Djokovic HAS a problem with Wawrinka. A BIG MATCHUP problem. So while a peak Wawrinka may NOT beat Fedal, the Swiss will MOST LIKELY beat Novak.
So in reality, only a peak Wawrinka could beat a peak Novak. Fedal certainly cannot. (Exception clay: Where a peak Nadal beats peak Novak).

Maybe Medvedev is the player who might beat peak Novak in the future. Although that remains to be seen. I think tennis from 2020-2023 - will be defined by the Novak - Medvedev rivalry.
If Novak manages to dominate Medvedev - the Serb will get to the most slams by any tennis player regardless of gender. Meaning he will beat Margaret Court's 24 major record.

Medvedev is really the only threat to stop Novak in the next few years, otherwise we are looking at 3+ Novak slams every year and perhaps a CYGS, as Fedal fade and retire + no new competition.
You are something like the biggest Djokovic fan on this forum.
Let's not forget 30 years old Federer beat peak Djokovic in RG. Then beat him in Wimbledon 2012. Yes, Djokovic definitely started dominating in this rivalry when Federer really got older, but before that he really didn't.
Nadal has 2 wins over prime Djokovic in USO, leave alone all the wins in RG. Yes, in 2011 it was one sided but Nadal responded pretty well to it and won most big matches in 2012-2013. But then of course Djokovic got lots of wins over out of form 2014-2016 Nadal, and of course Nadal never got a chance for a revenge.

So please, stop overreacting. Djokovic simply aged better than Federer and Nadal. Doesn't mean he was owning them when they were at their best, it isn't even close to the truth. When all of them were in their prime that used to be good rivalries.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
That has 0 relevance

Point is to having to face an ATG 6 younger nd at an age that is most favorable to the younger one
Fedfans have turned excuse-making into a science...

Kinda like alchemy, a pseudo-science, but still, not for a lack of trying.

Excuse Factory. Section A: manufacture of mono excuses. Section B: production of age excuses. Section C: clay is inferior so RF is a victim of a tour that refuses to have only HC and grass events.

There are also sections D to Z.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Fedfans have turned excuse-making into a science...

Kinda like alchemy, a pseudo-science, but still, not for a lack of trying.

Excuse Factory. Section A: manufacture of mono excuses. Section B: production of age excuses. Section C: clay is inferior so RF is a victim of a tour that refuses to have only HC and grass events.

There are also sections D to Z.
No credible defense, huh ?

The stats speak for themselves - 27 matches when Djokovic was 24-30 and Fed was 30-37.

And yet it took Djokovic to get the h2h only when Fed hit 34/35
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
If Djoker is on, he is unbeatable. He just has so many aloof moments on the micro and macro levels. He rides emotion quite a bit.
There's so many factors that go into making someone unbeatable. Form on the day, for example. I never thought in my wildest dreams that Sampras was going down to Krajicek in Wimbledon 1996. He just wasn't on that day. If an all-time great player can bring his best ever form to every tournament, he'd be unbeatable- Sampras 1999 Wimbledon, Federer 2007 AO, Nadal 2008 FO being some examples of the highest level of play I've seen.

Federer at AO 2007 made Roddick look like someone learning to play tennis :-D
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Mats Wilander:

"When he’s at his best, I think he breaks the world record in how good you can play tennis.
If true, he breaks the world record in missed opportunity...more so considering he faced a lost generation, a yet-to-breakout next generation, a past-prime Federer, and a past-peak Nadal.
 

Toronto11

New User
Mats Wilander:

"When he’s at his best, I think he breaks the world record in how good you can play tennis. He does it on every surface, and does it against every match-up.

He doesn’t have a problem with Nadal or a problem with Roger Federer. The other two always had that, and he doesn’t. And he does it against any style of player, doesn’t matter if it’s a big-server, it doesn’t matter if it’s [Roberto] Bautista Agut, doesn’t matter if it’s clay, or grass, or hard court.

He’s basically the only one I think that looks unbeatable for longer periods of time”. Before the final against Roger Federer, Wilander had said: “The problem with Novak for everybody is that we have not seen 50 per cent of his ability so far.

You see 80 per cent at times, and then he cleans them off the court. And then he goes down to 40, because he doesn’t really – I don’t know, he couldn’t be bothered, because he’s too good. It’s like he’s not fully into it because I think he knows he’s so much better than most of them, especially here."


I have to agree with him. Deep down you know it is true also.
“He doesn’t have a problem with Nadal...doesn’t matter if it’s clay” Absolutely ridiculous comment.
 
Top