RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
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.
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.
Frank Bannister
Semi-Pro
Apparently someone quoted me, but it has been removed 
Frank Bannister
Semi-Pro
How Djokovic is at 80% despite winning 86 games to his opponents measly 43 since his "comeback" .So, what are we debating today? Sounds like fun!
The Fedfather
Legend
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.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Against Djokovic, Fed can lose even with good service performances.
JaoSousa
Hall of Fame
Dude, you have been watching tennis for like 5 years
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
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
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
Have not heard it labelled "irresistable" per se but to each his own.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
LMAO . Fed barely met Novak before he hit 30. Most of their matches feature old Fed
daggerman
Hall of Fame
Yeah, because 2017 Novak was clearly "Novak at his best."
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Fringe players of prior decade - Ferrer, Stan became No 3 in this decade
That tells the story
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.
RS
Bionic Poster
Federer has the most achievements for now because of slams and YEC. But it is getting closer and closer.
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
The guy tried to sound smart then got embarrassed infront the whole board and more.
how do you call that?
O
OhYes
Guest
D
Deleted member 766172
Guest
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.
O
OhYes
Guest
I like honest posters.
daggerman
Hall of Fame
What are you talking about? They played 23 times before Fed's 30th birthday.
dropshotlikeitshot
Professional
If the courts weren’t as slow as clay, Fed would’ve won 2010 and 2011 USORafa 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
Genious at Work
G.O.A.T.
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.
O
OhYes
Guest
And if Fedal get 50% of Novak's draws, I am 100% sure that they wouldn't have double digit slam number.
Genious at Work
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, because Nadal does so poorly against Djoker in slams.
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.
daggerman
Hall of Fame
Yeah, because Nadal does so poorly against Djoker in slams.
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
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
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.
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.
O
OhYes
Guest
Should I also imagine Rafa playing every slam which Djokovic plays too and goes deep enough so they could meet ?Yeah, because Nadal does so poorly against Djoker in slams.
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.
Can I also imagine Novak's parents as employees of largest and wealthiest pharmaceutical company in human history ?
RS
Bionic Poster
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.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Indianwells007
Rookie
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.
Indianwells007
Rookie
Sadly that is true.
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?
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!
TennisFan3
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
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:
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
I call that you throwing their underlying sentiment under the bus on account of a mislabelling?
oooh get me with the shade.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
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.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Fair exists only in Utopia...
Of course, RF could always have retired at his alleged peak prime shmeep, in which case he wouldn't have played as a "very old man", no?
daggerman
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.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
And since all Big 3 won many slams after turning 30...
... the entire prime/peak/shmeep Excuse Factory is utter nonsense.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
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.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!
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
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
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
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
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
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Hang on...
Didn't you just PROVE my point about the Excuse Factory?
Section B, I believe...
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
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
duaneeo
Legend
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.
“He doesn’t have a problem with Nadal...doesn’t matter if it’s clay” Absolutely ridiculous comment.
Similar threads
