Who was more damaged at GS by Djokovic - Nadal or Federer?

[Tornes]

Lets look at the Grand Slam tournaments that were negatively affected by Djokovic for the big 2, ie Federer and Nadal.

Nadal lost to Djokovic 4 times at GS.
Federer lost to Djokovic 9 times at GS.
Clearly Federer seems to be damaged more.

However don't stop here and look further and deeper. How likely would they really won the tournament without Djokovic? How the timeline would be affected? What achievements they could get?

I will go tournament by tournament in the chronological order and try to figure it out.

Spoiler: Analysis of all GS loss of Fedal to Djokovic

1) Federer (1) lost in SF AO 2008
Probable SF opponents: Hewitt or Ferrer. Given the nature of matchup between them and Federer, even in 2008 he would be heavily favourited. At least 80 % that he win his SF and goes to final.
F opponent: Tsonga. Great form but first major final, Fed is still 3 times AO winner and won all 10 of his hardcourt/grasscourt GS finals... Lets say 50 %.
40 % chance of winning this major. That would give Federer at least another multislam year (6 in row), most probably (80 %) would have streak of 19 GS finals in row (beyond mindblowing). More stretched teory would be it could also give him enough confidence to win W 2008 (not probably).

2) Federer (2) lost in SF USO 2010
Probable SF opponents: Monfils or Fish. Heavy favourite against both, at least 75 %.
F opponent: Nadal in great form after winning last 2 slams. Yet still his first USO final. Nadal is favourite but cannot go lower than 25 % for Fed.
19 % chance of winning another slam and moreover Nadal losing one. That would give Fed another multislam year (maybe even 7th in row) and Fed would be best ever at USO.

3) Federer (3) lost in SF AO 2011
Probable SF opponent: Berdych. Could play against Fed at that time but Fed still would be favourite. At least 70 % for Fed.
F opponent: Murray. Had great success against Fed but mainly in BO3. Fed still favourite. 65 %.
45,5 % chance of winning another slam. Would win GS in ten consecutive years (probably the joint most with Nadal).

4) Nadal (1) lost in F Wimbledon 2011
Probable F opponent: Tsonga. Great form, just defeated Nadal in Queens. At most 75 % for Rafa.
75 % chance of winning another slam. Would have two consecutive multislam years, 3rd channel slam.

5) Federer (4) lost in SF USO 2011.
Probable SF opponents: Tipsa, Dolgo, maybe old Davy. Fed would be heavily favourite against any of them. 80 %.
F opponent: Nadal in good form. Still, Feds form this year was better than last one. Cannot go under 40 % for Fed.
32 % chance of getting another slam. Would win GS in ten consecutive years (probably the joint most with Nadal), maybe have another multislam year (with AO 2011), possible even 8th consecutive (with AO 08, 11 and UO 10).

6) Nadal (2) F USO 2011
Probable F opponent: Federer. As stated above cannot go for more than 60 % for Nadal.
60 % chance of winning another slam. Would have two consecutive multislam years, maybe even two consecutive 3 slams year (with W 2011).

7) Nadal (3) F AO 2012
Probable F opponent: Murray. Did not win slam yet but played great tournament. Nadal still would be favourite but cannot go for more than 70 % for him.
70 % chance of winning another slam. That would give him double career slam (either with USO 2010 or later) and another multislam year, possibly 4 of them in row (with USO or W 2011), possibly Nadal slam (with USO and W 2011).

8) Federer (5) SF FO 2012
Probable SF opponent: Tsonga. Federer did not play great that tournament, Tsonga could be favourite here. Fed still at least 40 %.
F opponent: Nadal, big favourite yet Fed at least 10 %.
4 % chance of winning another slam. Would give him double career slam.

9) Federer (6) F Wimbledon 2014
Probable F opponent: Dimitrov or Cilic, possibly Tsonga. Dima in great form but not a good matchup against Fed, similar for Cilic. Federer would be big favourite against any of them. At least 70 % for Fed.
70 % chance of winning another slam. Would give him at least 12 years with at least 1 slam, possibly 13 (with AO or USO 2011).

10) Nadal (4) QF RG 2015
Probable QF opponent: Gasquet. Even in 2015 form Nadal would be favourite but cannot give him more than 70 %, not at that year form.
SF opponent: Murray. Just defeated him in Madrid. Yet this is RG, Nadal should still be favourite but at most 60 % for him.
F opponent: Wawrinka. In great form, defeated him in their last slam match as well last clay match in condition probably most similar to RG. But still, it is RG, so I say 50 % for Rafa.
21 % chance of winning another slam. Would give him 11 RG titles, 11 consecutive years with at least 1 slam.

11) Federer (7) F Wimbledon 2015
Probable F opponent: Gasquet or Cilic. At Wimbledon Fed should defeat both easily. At least 70 % for him.
70 % chance of winning another slam. Would give him at least 12 years with at least 1 slam, possibly 14 (with AO or USO 2011 and Wimbl 2014), as well as possibly his own "la decima" (with W 2014).

12) Federer (8) F USO 2015
Probable F opponent: Cilic. In reality got totally destroyed by Novak, Fed should do the same. At least 75 % for Fed.
75 % chance of winning another slam. Would make him all time USO leader with at least 6 titles (possible 7 or 8), possibly give him another multislam year (with W 2015).

13) Federer (9) SF AO 16
Probable SF opponent: Nishi. At least 70 % for Fed.
F opponent: Murray. Not his greatest form, on 5 match losing streak with Fed. At least 60 % for Fed.
42 % chance of winning another slam.

I tried to be as harsh to Fed and as charitable to Nadal as possible. Yet even so when we simply sum their chances:

Federer: 40 + 19 + 45,5 + 32 + 4 + 70 + 70 + 75 + 42 = 397,5 %, therefore about 4 slams
Nadal: 75 + 60 + 70 + 21 = 226 %, therefore probably 2, possibly 3 slams. (Not even counting possible loss of USO 2010.)

Most Nadal could have get is 4 slams with double career slam, Nadal slam and 4 consecutive multislam years. Probably he would get something like 2 or 3 slams, maybe double career slam and at least 2 consecutive multislam year. After RG 2012 he might have as much as 13 slams, just three shy of Fed then total 16.

Most Fed could have as much as 9 slams, in 8 of them with solid chance. Probably would win at least four of them. After RG 2012 he might have as much as 21 slams, probably would have about 18 (5 more than most optimistic possibility for Rafa). Almost certainly would have his series of 19 consecutive slam finals. Now he would be leader in Wimbledon (with probably 9 or 10 titles), AO (with probably 7 or 8 titles) and USO (with probably 6 or 7 titles), therefore he would be the man with most titles in 4 out of 5 most important tennis tournaments.

Well, for me it is clear. Even when I was harder to Fed he still lost considerably more because of Djokovic. Even before 2014 Fed lost almost as much as Nadal and after that it is clearly Federer.

What is your oppinion? Vote and discuss.

 

[metsman]

Federer out of the three suffered the most at the hands of the other two because he's older than both and had to play them in their prime when he was not in his whereas the reverse happened far less frequently. Not to mention he's the most consistent past his prime so he makes it to plenty of meetings against the other two whereas they don't. Pretty simple.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Federer because he couldn't deal with Djoker the same way the Bull did or how PETE would have done.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Federer because he couldn't deal with Djoker the same way the Bull did or how PETE would have done.

1996 Pete would have beaten them at Wimbledon, it's only when world beaters like Richard Krajicek come on the scene Pete suffers.

 

[TheAssassin]

Federer since he met Djokovic more often during the latter's best periods than Nadal did, while the meetings were also well spread across all Majors.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

1996 Pete would have beaten them at Wimbledon, it's only when world beaters like Richard Krajicek come on the scene Pete suffers.

And at AO too. Scud and Krajicek could serve from a tree. None of them could have beaten Chang at the USO either. The guy could retrieve ANY shot.

 

[BGod]

Nadal. Simply put there was no one and I mean no one in Nadal's way at the 2011 Wimbledon & 2012 Aussie Opens. Federer choking at the US Opens 10 & 11 lead me to believe he wouldn't have been mentally fit in those finals although obviously can't discount him.

Nadal isn't winning 2015 French so that's irrelevant.

Roger meanwhile faces following guys in Novak's absence in 3 Finals:

Dimitrov & Gasquet/Cilic at Wimbledon. Easy wins.

Cilic at USO which is a toss up because Novak handled Roger by a good margin and Cilic was defending champion.

So in my book it looks like 2 a piece and 1 more with a good chance. That's as even as you get.

What puts Nadal over the top for me is his WTF loss to Novak in 2012 which is the only big empty on his career and fact he adds a 2nd Aussie and 3rd Wimbledon. Mucho importante.

Fed goes from 6-1-8-5 to 6-1-10-6
Nadal goes from 1-10-2-3 to 2-10-3-4

And Nadal gains WTF.

Then try and factor in mental aspect. Nadal was seriously rocked by 11-12 losses which in my opinion affected his 13-14 "injury" hiatus. Laugh now but at the time Novak had convincingly taken over off clay. Nadal losing on grass can be chalked up to change but that USO & Aussie??? Yeah no. He calculated at that point he couldn't beat Novak there so he didn't bother.

 

[Red Rick]

Federer out of the three suffered the most at the hands of the other two because he's older than both and had to play them in their prime when he was not in his whereas the reverse happened far less frequently. Not to mention he's the most consistent past his prime so he makes it to plenty of meetings against the other two whereas they don't. Pretty simple.

One thing. When did Federer ever play the generation that's 5 years older than him? I don't even know who's in there and I feel that was skipped entirely.

All I'm finding is

Albert Costa
Gaston Gaudio
Thomas Johansson
Carlos Moya
Gustavo Kuerten

Yevgeni Kafelnikov, maybe, he's 7 years older

People often talk about how Federer's era is weak, and while Federer's own era is definitely thin on ATG talent besides Federer, a massive contributor has been that the era before Federer was **** weak apart from a few clay specialists. Federer had super little overlap with other ATGs when he was the young guy.

I don't think I've ever seen this mentioned, but I think it's huge. Sure Federer, for the majority of the time, has been competing with dudes 5 years younger, but it's not like he ever needed the reverse situation in the first place.

The mid 70's were a gaping whole in terms of champions those years produced.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Easily Nadal.

Fed is the undisputed best with or without Djokovic.

No Djoker and there's an outside chance Nadal gets the slam record at some point in the last few years to at least make the title disputed.

But no Djoker increases Fed's slams too. So probably not.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

One thing. When did Federer ever play the generation that's 5 years older than him? I don't even know who's in there and I feel that was skipped entirely.

All I'm finding is

Albert Costa
Gaston Gaudio
Thomas Johansson
Carlos Moya
Gustavo Kuerten

Yevgeni Kafelnikov, maybe, he's 7 years older

People often talk about how Federer's era is weak, and while Federer's own era is definitely thin on ATG talent besides Federer, a massive contributor has been that the era before Federer was **** weak apart from a few clay specialists. Federer had super little overlap with other ATGs when he was the young guy.

I don't think I've ever seen this mentioned, but I think it's huge. Sure Federer, for the majority of the time, has been competing with dudes 5 years younger, but it's not like he ever needed the reverse situation in the first place.

The mid 70's were a gaping whole in terms of champions those years produced.

There was also Philippoussis.

But agree that the generation that followed Sampras and Agassi was weak. No wonder they managed to rack up so many slams.

 

[MathGeek]

I think in the long term, getting beaten by Djokovic has helped Federer become better.

 

[NatF]

One thing. When did Federer ever play the generation that's 5 years older than him? I don't even know who's in there and I feel that was skipped entirely.

All I'm finding is

Albert Costa
Gaston Gaudio
Thomas Johansson
Carlos Moya
Gustavo Kuerten

Yevgeni Kafelnikov, maybe, he's 7 years older

People often talk about how Federer's era is weak, and while Federer's own era is definitely thin on ATG talent besides Federer, a massive contributor has been that the era before Federer was **** weak apart from a few clay specialists. Federer had super little overlap with other ATGs when he was the young guy.

I don't think I've ever seen this mentioned, but I think it's huge. Sure Federer, for the majority of the time, has been competing with dudes 5 years younger, but it's not like he ever needed the reverse situation in the first place.

The mid 70's were a gaping whole in terms of champions those years produced.

I've mentioned it before when discussing the 90's, the generation after Sampras-Agassi etc...was really thin. Kuerten had ATG potential but became injured from the end of 2001 onwards, Moya was competitive until 2004 but there wasn't really anyone else who lasted longer than that. Johansson had injury problems and had some decent runs in 2004/2005 but he wasn't exactly a consistent opponent.

What Federer did have in the early days was Agassi until 2005 on HC. His most consistent period of tennis was 99-03 so his career trajectory fits more with someone 5 years his junior.

 

[George Turner]

One thing. When did Federer ever play the generation that's 5 years older than him? I don't even know who's in there and I feel that was skipped entirely.

All I'm finding is

Albert Costa
Gaston Gaudio
Thomas Johansson
Carlos Moya
Gustavo Kuerten

Yevgeni Kafelnikov, maybe, he's 7 years older

People often talk about how Federer's era is weak, and while Federer's own era is definitely thin on ATG talent besides Federer, a massive contributor has been that the era before Federer was **** weak apart from a few clay specialists. Federer had super little overlap with other ATGs when he was the young guy.

I don't think I've ever seen this mentioned, but I think it's huge. Sure Federer, for the majority of the time, has been competing with dudes 5 years younger, but it's not like he ever needed the reverse situation in the first place.

The mid 70's were a gaping whole in terms of champions those years produced.

Looking at the sampras/agassi era, they never face a worthy challenger who was about 5 years younger than them (and five years older than Fed.)
The most talented players from that age bracket were injury prone headcases Rios and Phillopousis. Kuerten was a clay courter so he wasn't really competing for the same tournaments as them (except WTF 2000.) Moya never had the talent, one slam wonders Gaudio and Johansson aren't worth mentioning. There was a black hole of talent during that time.

Not too dissimilar to the lost gen. And the next gen haven't stepped up either, this has become a bigger black hole.

 

[Red Rick]

Looking at the sampras/agassi era, they never face a worthy challenger who was about 5 years younger than them (and five years older than Fed.)
The most talented players from that age bracket were injury prone headcases Rios and Phillopousis. Kuerten was a clay courter so he wasn't really competing for the same tournaments as them (except WTF 2000.) Moya never had the talent, one slam wonders Gaudio and Johansson aren't worth mentioning. There was a black hole of talent during that time.

Not too dissimilar to the lost gen. And the next gen haven't stepped up either, this has become a bigger black hole.

Yeah. This is the first time I've noticed this. It does show that shorter weak era's aren't that uncommon, but it is getting very long now.

 

[George Turner]

Yeah. This is the first time I've noticed this. It does show that shorter weak era's aren't that uncommon, but it is getting very long now.

Ohh hold on, we missed someone.. Schuettler!

Sampras/Agassi eventually got challenged by a group 10 years younger (Feds gen.) The group 10 years younger than Fed failed and now a group 15 years younger aren't doing it.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Easily Federer. Both have lost three Slam finals however, their other losses are making the difference here. Nadals loss at FO 2015 is rather irrelevant he would not have won there anyways. Fed on the other hand lost a lot of semifinals. FO 12 he would have lost the final against Nadal, same at US Open 10 and 11 ( could give him a chance here in 2011 however I doubt it as Nadal was in his head during that time as their encounters in FO 11 or AO 12 proved). In AO 08,11 and 16 however there is no chance in hell that Fed had lost potential finals against Tsonga or Murray. Tsonga is a one time slam finalist and Murray is and always was Feds lapdog at slams. All in all Fed would have six more slams if it wasn’t for djokovic while Nadal would only have three.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Gaston Gaudio

Oh and Gaudio was only 3 years older.

 

[Tornes]

Nadal. Simply put there was no one and I mean no one in Nadal's way at the 2011 Wimbledon & 2012 Aussie Opens. Federer choking at the US Opens 10 & 11 lead me to believe he wouldn't have been mentally fit in those finals although obviously can't discount him.

Nadal isn't winning 2015 French so that's irrelevant.

Roger meanwhile faces following guys in Novak's absence in 3 Finals:

Dimitrov & Gasquet/Cilic at Wimbledon. Easy wins.

Cilic at USO which is a toss up because Novak handled Roger by a good margin and Cilic was defending champion.

So in my book it looks like 2 a piece and 1 more with a good chance. That's as even as you get.

What puts Nadal over the top for me is his WTF loss to Novak in 2012 which is the only big empty on his career and fact he adds a 2nd Aussie and 3rd Wimbledon. Mucho importante.

Fed goes from 6-1-8-5 to 6-1-10-6
Nadal goes from 1-10-2-3 to 2-10-3-4

And Nadal gains WTF.

Then try and factor in mental aspect. Nadal was seriously rocked by 11-12 losses which in my opinion affected his 13-14 "injury" hiatus. Laugh now but at the time Novak had convincingly taken over off clay. Nadal losing on grass can be chalked up to change but that USO & Aussie??? Yeah no. He calculated at that point he couldn't beat Novak there so he didn't bother.

Djokovic beat Federer 9 times yet you discuss just 3 of the losses. Add to your calculation that Fed would have solid chance at each of AO 08, 11, 16 (would be the favourite in all of his matches) and ÚSO 10, 11 (big favourite in SF, solid chance in finals). And if you count also WTF than Roger would get as much as 3 more of them (big favourite in all of his matches).

 

[hoodjem]

Loved the 2011 FO semi!

GFWOAT.

 

[Cortana]

USO 2010
USO 2011
W 2019

Never forget.

 

[Deleted member 629564]

Doesn't matter as numbers are not important in tennis anymore.

 

[NAS]

USO 2010
USO 2011
W 2019

Never forget.

Even AO2016 Wimbledon 2014,2015

 

[sebash]

I mean Nadal is essentially responsible for Federer's losses in his 20s on clay. Djokovic is responsable for all Federer's losses on 3 slams in his 30s
W 2014, 2015, 2019
AO 2016, 2020
USO 2011, 2015
Even RG 2012

 

[aldeayeah]

Djokovic almost single-handedly ousted Federer from his USO/Wimbledon strongholds. While Nadal managed to keep his KoC crown.

 

[NAS]

I mean Nadal is essentially responsible for Federer's losses in his 20s on clay. Djokovic is responsable for all Federer's losses on 3 slams in his 30s
W 2014, 2015, 2019
AO 2016, 2020
RG 2012
USO 2015

And three Yec , rome, different masters final, week ranking and year end ranking,what people don't understand Novak hurt Fed overall resume.
Even with less GS with that type of resume Fed would have leapfrogged Rafa career

 

[Hood_Man]

Nadal easy. Federer had achieved most of what he wanted by 2010, and it was only because of the lack of talent in the gen following Nadal and Djokovic that he kept going - I know I accuse Nadalovic of vulturing but Fed did his fair share too.

Without Djokovic, Nadal would have had his ATG success in 2010 and would have followed it up with an even better 2011 and achieve a non-calendar grand slam in 2012 - who was there to stop him from winning Wimbledon 2011, USO 2011, AO 2012, in addition to the real world wins of FO 2011 and FO 2012?

14 majors at age 26, 5 of them won in a row, 2 career grand slams, and then everything he achieves afterwards (which would presumably include a 2013 WTF, 2018 Wimbledon, and 2019 Australian Open in addition).

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal easy. Federer had achieved most of what he wanted by 2010, and it was only because of the lack of talent in the gen following Nadal and Djokovic that he kept going - I know I accuse Nadalovic of vulturing but Fed did his fair share too.

Without Djokovic, Nadal would have had his ATG success in 2010 and would have followed it up with an even better 2011 and achieve a non-calendar grand slam in 2012 - who was there to stop him from winning Wimbledon 2011, USO 2011, AO 2012, in addition to the real world wins of FO 2011 and FO 2012?

14 majors at age 26, 5 of them won in a row, 2 career grand slams, and then everything he achieves afterwards (which would presumably include a 2013 WTF, 2018 Wimbledon, and 2019 Australian Open in addition).

 

[mike danny]

Nadal easy. Federer had achieved most of what he wanted by 2010, and it was only because of the lack of talent in the gen following Nadal and Djokovic that he kept going - I know I accuse Nadalovic of vulturing but Fed did his fair share too.

Without Djokovic, Nadal would have had his ATG success in 2010 and would have followed it up with an even better 2011 and achieve a non-calendar grand slam in 2012 - who was there to stop him from winning Wimbledon 2011, USO 2011, AO 2012, in addition to the real world wins of FO 2011 and FO 2012?

14 majors at age 26, 5 of them won in a row, 2 career grand slams, and then everything he achieves afterwards (which would presumably include a 2013 WTF, 2018 Wimbledon, and 2019 Australian Open in addition).

I'm not so sure it's easily Nadal. Fed lost so many slams in his 30's to Djokovic that he'd still be the slam leader currently quite comfortably. Rafa had the fortune of facing Djokovic while in his own prime and at his pet slam a lot of times to boot. Fed never faced Djokovic at Wimb in his prime for him to get his fair share of wins.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Nadal stopped Djokovic at RG and USO. Even Murray and Wawrinka managed to beat Djokovic at slam finals, Federer didn’t.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal stopped Djokovic at RG and USO. Even Murray and Wawrinka managed to beat Djokovic at slam finals, Federer didn’t.

He did beat Djokovic in the USO 2007 F.

After that it's not exactly Federer's fault that Djokovic got to play slam finals only against an old Fed.

 

[TheNachoMan]

He did beat Djokovic in the USO 2007 F.

After that it's not exactly Federer's fault that Djokovic got to play slam finals only against an old Fed.

2007 USO was Djokovic’s first ever slam final. So age and experience was an advantage for Fed there.

 

[mike danny]

2007 USO was Djokovic’s first ever slam final. So age and experience was an advantage for Fed there.

And in those other slam finals Fed was 33, 34 and 38. Age and experience was advantage Djokovic each time.

Don't take a shot at Fed if you're gonna use age when it suits you.

 

[Hood_Man]

I'm not so sure it's easily Nadal. Fed lost so many slams in his 30's to Djokovic that he'd still be the slam leader currently quite comfortably. Rafa had the fortune of facing Djokovic while in his own prime and at his pet slam a lot of times to boot. Fed never faced Djokovic at Wimb in his prime for him to get his fair share of wins.

You make a fair point, and while I agree Federer would have also won more tournaments I feel it's a bit of a moot point as during the time Djokovic would have become a dominant force, Nadal's multiple career slams etc would have surpassed Federer's achievements.

It all comes back to the FO for me; without Djokovic Federer doesn't gain anything there, so his career slam counts stays at 1 regardless of how well he does elsewhere.

Nadal one the other hand was, in my opinion anyway, directly stopped by Djokovic in 2 AO finals, 1 USO final, and 1 WIM final and another semi final where he surely would have gone on to win that final. That's 4 career slams.

That's just my 2 cents though

By the way it's a pleasure being able to disagree this politely on the internet these days

 

[mike danny]

You make a fair point, and while I agree Federer would have also won more tournaments I feel it's a bit of a moot point as during the time Djokovic would have become a dominant force, Nadal's multiple career slams etc would have surpassed Federer's achievements.

It all comes back to the FO for me; without Djokovic Federer doesn't gain anything there, so his career slam counts stays at 1 regardless of how well he does elsewhere.

Nadal one the other hand was, in my opinion anyway, directly stopped by Djokovic in 2 AO finals, 1 USO final, and 1 WIM final and another semi final where he surely would have gone on to win that final. That's 4 career slams.

That's just my 2 cents though

By the way it's a pleasure being able to disagree this politely on the internet these days

Without Djokovic, Nadal wins: Wimb 2011, AO 2012, possibly USO 2011, Wimb 2018, AO 2019 and RG 2021, so around 6 additional slams.

Without Djokovic, Fed wins: AO 2008, AO 2011, Wimb 2014, Wimb 2015, USO 2015, AO 2016 and Wimb 2019, so around 7 additional slams.

I'd say Nadal playing Djokovic in his prime and 10 times at his pet slam is anything but unlucky.

 

[SonnyT]

Federer, because Djokovic majors in the same slams, AO & Wimb, as Federer. But Djokovic initially cost Nadal 2011-12 seasons.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer because his definition of slams is all 4 slams while Nadal plays clay and Nole can't beat him often there.

 

[Razer]

Nadal suffered less damage since clay was won mostly by nadal, it is roger who suffered more in 2010s

 

[Razer]

Nadal easy. Federer had achieved most of what he wanted by 2010, and it was only because of the lack of talent in the gen following Nadal and Djokovic that he kept going - I know I accuse Nadalovic of vulturing but Fed did his fair share too.

Without Djokovic, Nadal would have had his ATG success in 2010 and would have followed it up with an even better 2011 and achieve a non-calendar grand slam in 2012 - who was there to stop him from winning Wimbledon 2011, USO 2011, AO 2012, in addition to the real world wins of FO 2011 and FO 2012?

14 majors at age 26, 5 of them won in a row, 2 career grand slams, and then everything he achieves afterwards (which would presumably include a 2013 WTF, 2018 Wimbledon, and 2019 Australian Open in addition).

This logic is correct as well, if ATGs had emerged in 1995-1997 age group then then bigger loser would have been Nadal at the hands of Novak since Federer already took his share of the pie before djokodal peaked

 

[Chanwan]

I'm not so sure it's easily Nadal. Fed lost so many slams in his 30's to Djokovic that he'd still be the slam leader currently quite comfortably. Rafa had the fortune of facing Djokovic while in his own prime and at his pet slam a lot of times to boot. Fed never faced Djokovic at Wimb in his prime for him to get his fair share of wins.

@Hood_Man - I got no doubt whatsoever that Federer lost out on more slams to Djokovic than Rafa did. The numbers are pretty clear on this unless I'm missing something obvious?

 

[Silverbullet96]

It should be a simple answer, right ? The one who's lost the most matches to Djokovic, and that would be Nadal.

 

[Chanwan]

It should be a simple answer, right ? The one who's lost the most matches to Djokovic, and that would be Nadal.

Most slam matches and that would be Federer and it's not even close.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

I would say Nadal.
One of The biggest question mark for his GOAT-hood is that he never dominated a longer period/was the best guy to beat. He was only supreme during a short period:
- WC2008-AO2009
- 2010
- US Open hard court swing 2013 - RG2014

However, if he didn’t face djokovic you could make the case that he was the best in the world from RG2008 until RG2014 (with a short injury interruption in 2009) and that his 6 years reign only ended due to injuries. Even if Fed ends up with more slams I would have given the edge to Nadal as a GOAT.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Damaged is a poor choice of words, but understandable.

Federer had already had most of his success earlier than Nadal and certainly before Djo in their era, so his overall 'success' in H2H would be more skewed, where Nadal would have been playing more competitively, having a closer H2H, but realistically you would have expected him to have a worse H2H based on typical longevity in the sport - i.e. the natural diminishing of performance over time and variation in intangible genetics and such. So Fed had success earlier peak because of age, but Nadal had earlier success and peak at an earlier age.

There isn't "damage" caused by any of them. Any arguments there have counter arguments, especially in hypotheticals. So you could argue that both Federer and Nadal's earlier dominance and peaks damaged Djo's ability to build early confidence and have success, only allowing him to peak later after both had already passed their own. Obviously not an option in the statement poll.

 

[Silverbullet96]

Federer had already had most of his success earlier than Nadal and certainly before Djo in their era, so his overall 'success' in H2H would be more skewed, where Nadal would have been playing more competitively, having a closer H2H, but realistically you would have expected him to have a worse H2H based on typical longevity in the sport - i.e. the natural diminishing of performance over time and variation in intangible genetics and such.

@threehandedbackhand:

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Nadal probably. He lost on a few AOs and few More Wimbledons a US open and 2 French opens and probably a calendar slam in 2011 maybe. He stopped prime Nadal. Fed was already on his 13th slam or something by the time djokovic won his first

 

[ChaelAZ]

@threehandedbackhand:

lol. Okay.

 

[Deleted member 629564]

@threehandedbackhand:

My fists are shaking too.

 

[mike danny]

I would say Nadal.
One of The biggest question mark for his GOAT-hood is that he never dominated a longer period/was the best guy to beat. He was only supreme during a short period:
- WC2008-AO2009
- 2010
- US Open hard court swing 2013 - RG2014

However, if he didn’t face djokovic you could make the case that he was the best in the world from RG2008 until RG2014 (with a short injury interruption in 2009) and that his 6 years reign only ended due to injuries. Even if Fed ends up with more slams I would have given the edge to Nadal as a GOAT.

Without Djokovic Fed would've also had more multi-slam/dominant years, so it's not just Nadal that is affected here.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

Without Djokovic Fed would've also had more multi-slam/dominant years, so it's not just Nadal that is affected here.

The difference is Federer already has his consecutive dominant years: from 2004 to 2007. So adding anther year(s) would not add much to his legacy. Meanwhile, Nadal does not have multiple consecutive dominant years which is a big flaw to his legacy.

Moreover, how many dominant years would wins over djokovic add to Federer? I think only 2015 would be the year Fed would be the undisputed best player.

Of course, a big question mark is the US Open. With no Djokovic, Fed would have met Nadal in the 2010 and 2011 finals. I think those games would determine the GOAT.

 

[SonnyT]

Without Djoko, Federer would be the undisputed king of Wimbledon, with 11 titles, which would rank somewhat comparably with Nadal's 14 at RG. And he would also have 9 (including 08, 11 and 16) AO's. Murray would inherit most of the other Djokovic AO titles.

Post-13, Nadal only met Djokovic twice at non-RG slams. So they crossed paths relatively few.