OT: Djokovic one match away from Calendar Grand Slam

[Johnny Firpo]

I really don't respect you nor your repetitive bias disguised as objective opinions in this topic, so yea...

You are overthinking this. Watch the match again, and tell me he did not make errors early in neutral rallies, or that his body language was the usual. Also, even if I would be super biased, it doesn't necessarily mean I cannot be objective about his play. You think he played well, and did not start bad?

[FinnTheHuman]

I really don't respect you nor your repetitive bias disguised as objective opinions in this topic, so yea...

You are overthinking this. Watch the match again, and tell me he did not make errors early in neutral rallies, or that his body language was the usual. Also, even if I would be super biased, it doesn't necessarily mean I cannot be objective about his play. You think he played well, and did not start bad?

Let's pretend that physical fatigue doesn't influence the increase in unforced errors and poorer body language...

Djokovic started well outside of the very 1st game of the match, but Medvedev served insanely well so Djokovic couldn't get back into the 1st set, despite being more than solid when he himself served.

The fatigue kicked in at some point in the 2nd set, at which point Medvedev started being the better player. All this mumbo-jumbo about Djokovic's poor mentality in this match is wrong, Medvedev played an amazing match and was much better than he usually is from the baseline, and it was too much for the fatigued Djokovic, who tried to shorten the points, which is extremely uncharacteristic of him unless he knows he won't have the strength to endure a long match with a lot of long rallies. He obviously made the decision to try to shorten the rallies because he played more tennis than he usually does at the grand slams.

People who are biased and are trying to attribute Djokovic's loss to mental weakness are overthinking this, because they have an agenda, it's not me who is overthinking it, I'm actually the one saying that the most obvious thing is what actually happened.

[HEKTOR]

I wouldn't say this US Open was Djokovic's biggest/most important match ever. I think even with the loss when compared to Nadal and Fed, Nole is the GOAT. This would have probably made it indisputable but who's to say it won't be indisputable anyways? Out of the big-3, Nole looks the most likely to win the most slams from here on out.
I'd probably say the Wimbledon final against Fed in 19' was his biggest match ever, perhaps now looking back. Djokovic was going in at 15 GS titles, Fed at 20. Djokovic loses and he's down 6 which seems almost impossible for him to catch. Instead, he comes back, saves 2 match points on Fed's serve in a hostile environment and cuts the gap to 4 GS titles. I think that gave Djokovic the belief that he could get to 20 or more and really when you look at it, he's be on a tear ever since. Wimbledon not being held in 2020 worked against Djokovic the most while we all know what happened in NYC in 2020. Even with all that, plus this loss to Medvedev, I still think he comes back and continues to win GS titles - all the while cementing his spot as the true GOAT.

[HEKTOR]

I really don't respect you nor your repetitive bias disguised as objective opinions in this topic, so yea...

You are overthinking this. Watch the match again, and tell me he did not make errors early in neutral rallies, or that his body language was the usual. Also, even if I would be super biased, it doesn't necessarily mean I cannot be objective about his play. You think he played well, and did not start bad?

Let's pretend that physical fatigue doesn't influence the increase in unforced errors and poorer body language... Djokovic started well outside of the very 1st game of the match, but Medvedev served insanely well so Djokovic couldn't get back into the 1st set, despite being more than solid when he himself served. The fatigue kicked at some point in the 2nd set, at which point Medvedev started being the better player. All this mumbo-jumbo about Djokovic's poor mentality in this match is wrong, Medvedev played an amazing match and was much better than he usually is from the baseline, and it was too much for the fatigued Djokovic, who tried to shorten the points, which is extremely uncharacteristic of him unless he knows he won't have the strength to endure a long match with a lot of long rallies. He obviously made the decision to try to shorten the rallies because he played more tennis than he usually does at the grand slams.

Yeah, exactly, Med's tactics and execution were spot on. Serve big, try to keep the points short while on serve while try to extend the rallies and force Djokovic to beat you when returning. That first game of the match was extremely important and after going down a break, Djokovic simply wasn't able to claw his way back until the very end when it was far too late.

[Doctor MJ]

Look, I've no issue in admitting Djokovic is the best player we've ever seen in the Open Era. The problem is that Big3 GOAThood is a marketing scam, we are suddenly forgetting what Laver did. Big3 have been playing catchup with Laver the whole time, he achieved CYGS multiple times, which is the most important and prestigious achievement, come back to me when they win CYGS even just 1 time.
I mean, Djokovic hasn't even won the most prestigious tournament, which is Olympics, this doesn't mean he is not better than Federer and Nadal, it just means he cannot be GOAT, his resume has serious cracks that are masked only because people suddenly forgot that Laver exists.

TLDR: DjokovicWillNeverBeGOAT

This is a fairly common belief, but you should know that the fixation on the Grand Slam is actually a modern invention.

Prior to the 1930s the Grand Slam wasn't really a thing people players weren't traveling to all the different continents (Bill Tilden never played the Australian.)

From the 1930s through the 1960s, the best male players in the world were always professional who turned pro after winning Grand Slams.

And in the '70s through the mid-80s, pros still weren't taking the Australian Open as seriously as the 4th most important tournament in the world.

So judging current players as inferior to players from the past on the basis of the Calendar Slam really is moving the goalpost. It's caught on in recent times in no small part due to the fact that the Golf Grand Slam was already so significant and a notion of a "Grand Slam" resonates with people, but its really a retcon.

Incidentally, what this also means is that there's a trend of Grand Slam-based thinking to overrate past Australian players. Why? Because everyone took Roland Garros, Wimbledon & the US seriously, but in general only those who lived close to Australia took the Australian Open seriously.

This is more egregious in the women's game where Margaret Smith-Court won 11 of her 24 majors at the Aussie, but it's an issue in the men's game too because, for example, Pancho Gonzales - a contemporary of Laver who I consider to have been better than Laver then, and a much better prospect for today's game - never competed at the Australian at any point near his prime.

One other point:

The Olympics isn't anywhere close to the most prestigious tournament in tennis. I understand why you'd think that from the outside, but it's just not true any more than soccer in the Olympics means more than the world cup.

I'd typically rank the Olympics 6th behind the 4 slams and the WTF at the end of the year.

[DirtyDez]

Would’ve been a asterisk title anyway amirite

[Bum Adebayo]

Would’ve been a asterisk title anyway amirite

Not asterisked, but context always matters. With Federer semi retired and Nadal already washed up, it is a fact he has been feasting on inferior competition for a while, which is not his fault of course, just the sad state of tennis right now, next gen sucks for the most part, I mean, Wimbledon 2021 had the worst competition I've ever seen.
Still, a CYGS is a CYGS and it will always be really valuable. The fact that he couldn't get it even in one of the weakest years ever speaks volumes to the amazing feat that Laver accomplished.

[Doctor MJ]

Doctor MJ- It’s for the difficulty runs and wins on who they versed all up not their individual ELO rating. Peer comp

2006 Peak season Federer is not anyway shape or form comparable to 2015 and 2016 Djokovic. Nadal’s 2010 also is very much in line.

Why aren't you giving me links with data? You're the one who brought up ELO and gave a number (300) for the edge of Djokovic/Nadal over Federer. I responded by giving a link to the site that I know actually calculates this data and it contradicted what you said.

Now, I wasn't assuming that that was the only source of data. For all I know there's another site with slightly different techniques that somehow resulted in a pretty major discrepancy with my source after all. At this point though, it reads like you were just going from memory and your memory was wrong.

Age
Djokovic 21
And Federer 21

Djokovic wins out in slams, win %, titles. Better younger, tougher road in his prime, and obv a sustainable longevity. Same deal with Nadal. They all have Pre Prime, Peak, Post Prime, Longevity of extremely high peaks (Big 3 for a reason).

Federer still has as many slams as anyone and has more deep accomplishment in the majors than Djokovic or Nadal.

It's understandable to side with Djokovic if you weight things a bit differently, but based on raw cumulative Grand Slam data, Federer remains the GOAT, which means there's clearly still an argument for Federer as GOAT. All that feels likely to change soon, but it hasn't yet.

At their Peak level Djokovic obviously had harder comp. Same with Nadal.

I don't see anything obvious here. I see ELO estimations that give Djokovic & Nadal slight edges over Federer, but that's it.

To emphasize again: I also rank Djokovic's peak higher than Federer's, but Nadal's I don't. All are close, because each player has the edge based on different conditions. Tell me the surface (and condition) and I'll tell you who the favorite is peak vs peak. Where Djokovic has the edge over both is that I'd take him on 2 of the 3 major surfaces over the other two, and then I'd take Federer on 2 of the 3 over Nadal.

Overall Djokovic is the top dog on all surfaces especially in Finals play.

I understand your thoughts here and I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's not so clear to me.

First, through 2013 overall, Federer has the edge both in overall and in the majors, and in 2013, Federer is 32 years old, which makes him 7 years older than McEnroe & Borg were when they stopped.

As far as finals go specifically, I see the stats you showed earlier that say that Djokovic apparently overperformed while Federer apparently underperformed, but the question is "Why?" Part of the explanation is that these guys were playing most of their matches at a time when Djokovic was closer to classical prime, and that's the sort of thing that needs to be normalized for.

Where's the kernel of truth? Well 2 things actually:

1. Djokovic (and Nadal as well) clearly endure the 5th set better than Federer. Nadal providing the model against Federer of essentially just trying to hang in there and wear Federer down, and Djokovic was able to do it too. Obviously physical endurance is just an attribute and I'd give Nadal & Djokovic the edge there. I'd also suggest that Federer was possibly more vulnerable to this because his advantage over Nadal & Djokovic when fresh was that he had better shot accuracy, and this may be an advantage that essentially went away at the end of a long match.

2. The more damning thing about Federer is he was less immune to the pressure of big moments. Choking, in other words. We shouldn't go too far on this because if Federer was actually a horrible choker he'd never have made it as a pro at all, but in comparison to Nadal generally and later Djokovic, he was less rock solid.

Though I'll say on the other hand: Federer was mentally stronger than Nadal & Djokovic at bringing his best every tournament - Federer's the strongest in men's history on this front, and Chris Evert's the strongest woman. I bring this up not to counter the above weaknesses, but just because it's relevant, and those who focus only on head-to-heads underrate these players.

You probably know ratings can’t be argued against.

Note sure what you mean by this. In the end, my rankings are informed by various ratings, but the final call is always holistic based on assessment of how players actually played.

You can make a case say they all started at the same time and finished at the same time. But then Djokovic has the distinct edge on all surfaces hence the all roundedness of his court wins is undeniable.

I mean, in addition to Federer winning more Wimbledons, he had 12 finals appearance to Djokovic's 7. That's really not close. You can argue Djokovic had the better peak, but Djokovic had plenty of time to accomplish more on Wimbledon if he were indeed year-to-year the greatest grass court player in history.

Objectively Peak Federer should have the edge over a very young Nadal but as with history Nadal was a GOAT level player on clay as a teenager. Let’s not forget other multiple important matches on surfaces outside of clay too which is a big factor to be included and not to be remissed. He did go to 5 as a teenager in the Masters and not on his favorite surface against Peak Fed once again.

Personally if you ran it from the beginning it would be Nadal first then Djokovic on second half of who would be the GOAT. Federer no doubt would have big success duh but the evidence favors the other two more.

Remember Federer did have issues as a youngster and was the oldest to breakthrough in his maiden Slam win. A 17 yr old Nadal beat World Number 1 Federer in straight sets and one of six players that year.

In tennis circles and outside say this forum Peak Fed happened in a weaker era of tennis outside of a pre prime aged Nadal it’s not very arguable at all.

So, I'll respond like this:

Toni Nadal, Rafa's coach and mentor, told Rafa early on "Federer is a better player than you, but you can beat him". What he meant by this is that Federer was a virtuoso who could hit every type of shot with more accuracy than Nadal...but as long as Rafa could keep getting the ball back and keep giving that insane topspin directed at Federer's one-handed backhand, the matchup would skew more to Nadal than you'd expect simply based on shot-making skill.

This of course was the story of their rivalry for many years...but it didn't last forever. In their matches in the past 7 years, Federer has won 6 of 7, including the 5-set Aussie Final in 2017, and every single match that wasn't on clay.

It was clear what happened. Once Federer literally had to change his game generally, he came back with a more modern racket and a more aggressive approach, and from that point on, when he was healthy, he owned the matchup except on Nadal's beloved clay.

All this to say, there's honestly no reason to think Federer couldn't have been doing this years earlier. The question was always whether Federer could fine the right counter to Nadal to allow his superior tennis-specific skill to win out, and eventually he did.

I'm not erasing the past here. Because Federer delayed so long he only has 20 majors and that's absolutely going to hold him back in people's estimation from here until the end of tennis. But so long as Federer has the edge in actual deep accomplishment in the majors, that along with the fact that Federer was more of a virtuoso, less surface dependent, and proved by the end that he could indeed figure Nadal out doesn't really leave room for me to place Nadal above him on my GOAT list.

And as said before, after Federer came and figured Nadal out, he wasn't able to do the same with Djokovic. And while I'll insist we consider Federer's age in that dynamic, the fact remains I have more confidence in Djokovic than in Federer. That extra length and flexibility he had, along with the endurance he developed, is just too much for me to side against when comparing the two based on their general bests.

[ceiling raiser]

.

How many GS do you think each of the Big 3 retires with?

[DCasey91]

Doctor MJ

Federer’s best season (04/06/07)

Djokovic’s best season (11/15)

Nadal’s best season (8/10/13)

Have a look at the top ten for their respective peers. The ratings there’s a big enough gap. It’s very sound that parity was much bigger at the top during Nadal/Djokovic’s era (multiple slam winners outside of the big three, Fed/Nadal era no one had more than one).

Also to include they’ve all had fantastic pre primes, peaks and post primes. And also overlap share wins against each other at different points in time when the other should be more favored.

06 top ten average age was 24. People may think that it’s prime age for tennis players but I digress. 4 debutants in the top ten etc etc.

2011/2015 were seasoned winners across the board (6.9 seasons in the top ten!) (no one with less than 10 tour titles, even outside the big three, the big three already jumps the ELO etc etc.) In fact the 2015 top ten performed better than the 2006 holistically 1-10.

Djokovic also had double the number of top 5 wins. Median rank vs is a lot lower (20 vs Fed’s 36).

I’m saying Fed results wouldn’t be as favorable against tougher comp. His losses that year were to pre prime players (Nadal/Murray). There is more than double the number of Masters runners up from rank 2-10 (7 vs 3) 15 top ten and the 06 top ten. A staggering 25 more match wins in Slams that year.

You can certainly make a case for all 3. But for sure Djokovic had the harder time of it. He ran into Heavy hitters at basically every event and ended up with an amazing record (more wins inside the top 5, staggering 31 wins vs the top ten) year especially in Record Masters play.

[DCasey91]

Doctor MJ found the link

https://medium.com/@JuanJoseVallejo/searching-for-a-standard-of-greatness-roger-federer-s-2006-season-versus-novak-djokovic-s-2015-9a85eebef9df

33 min read.

I do say to this day 2008ish to 2017 is probably the hardest difficulty in Worldwide sports and that’s smack bang in the middle of Djokovic’s prime.

[DCasey91]

We aren’t talking about a 14 or 14+ season Duncan/Garnett (drop off).

We are talking about 3x Lebron quality 14 or 14+ seasons for each of them.

[DCasey91]

Joker is number 5 all time in return games won and Fed is 41st back 2016.

Joker really has a legitimate argument to be the best ever considering the hardest gauntlet he was in for much of his career.

All have hall of fame careers if you take their careers from starting from 30 onwards.

Joker is the youngest ever to reach the semis or higher in every Slam
Nadal has a legitimate case for GOAT teenager and the youngest ever to win it all.
Federer oldest to breakthrough but has the longest timeframe of quality to go over.

I mean the evidence is pretty clear cut to me.

Run it back from their careers start to finish it starting at the same time would be Nadal first (lock at one slam minimum
per year as soon as age 18-19 and fit could 3x multiple years in his 20’s as he did but only once (and it wouldn’t be a surprise to knowledgeable tennis fans) then Djokovic with Federer mixed in between.

Easy case for Nadal and Djokovic having more slam wins at a younger age too. Across all surfaces though the Joker is just more live to me.

[Bum Adebayo]

None of them have dominated the whole year multiple times like Laver did, you just cannot be GOAT if you don't have CYGS, and in the open era it is also necessary to win Olympics gold, otherwise you may be better than your peers but GOAT is out of question. Moreover, it is a really bad look for Djokovic to not win Olympics gold when it was played on Hard court (his favourite surface) 3 out of 4 times! this is not what a GOAT looks like, this is just a "he may be just slightly better than his peers and that's it" type of thing.

[DCasey91]

Bum you have no idea about tennis lol. Stick to basketball

[azcatz11]

None of them have dominated the whole year multiple times like Laver did, you just cannot be GOAT if you don't have CYGS, and in the open era it is also necessary to win Olympics gold, otherwise you may be better than your peers but GOAT is out of question. Moreover, it is a really bad look for Djokovic to not win Olympics gold when it was played on Hard court (his favourite surface) 3 out of 4 times! this is not what a GOAT looks like, this is just a "he may be just slightly better than his peers and that's it" type of thing.

He never passed the eye test for me. Like I said, if Fed or Rafa went to his pushing style they could do the same thing quite easily

[DCasey91]

None of them have dominated the whole year multiple times like Laver did, you just cannot be GOAT if you don't have CYGS, and in the open era it is also necessary to win Olympics gold, otherwise you may be better than your peers but GOAT is out of question. Moreover, it is a really bad look for Djokovic to not win Olympics gold when it was played on Hard court (his favourite surface) 3 out of 4 times! this is not what a GOAT looks like, this is just a "he may be just slightly better than his peers and that's it" type of thing.

Fed (04-07)
Nadal (10, 13)
Djokovic (11-13, 15, 16)

Joker occupies 5 of the top 20 statistical seasons ever.

Murray’s 2016 was absurd. (13th)

The in between years are ATG/GOAT level anyway. Multi Slam titles, Multi Masters etc. 3x Lebron’s at all times for 14+ seasons.

2011... Madrid then Rome (Clay) Djokovic beats Nadal twice in the Finals. Joker and Nadal has always had the hardest road and there’s no question about it

You have no credibility here.

[Doctor MJ]

Doctor MJ found the link

https://medium.com/@JuanJoseVallejo/searching-for-a-standard-of-greatness-roger-federer-s-2006-season-versus-novak-djokovic-s-2015-9a85eebef9df

33 min read.

I do say to this day 2008ish to 2017 is probably the hardest difficulty in Worldwide sports and that’s smack bang in the middle of Djokovic’s prime.

Great article and I really don't have a problem if you rank 2015 Djokovic over 2006 Federer. I'll add that while it isn't the same as a Calendar Slam, it matters to me that Djokovic won 4 in a row from Wimbledon 2015 to Roland Garros 2016.

Something I will say that's one of the key thing I always look, and this author doesn't appear to think of it:

Who did they lose to?

In 2006, Roger Federer lost to just 2 players:

Rafael Nadal (4 times)
Andy Murray

In 2015, Novak Djokovic lost to:

Roger Federer (3 times)
Ivo Karlovic
Stan Wawrinka
Andy Murray

Both of these are about as impressive as it gets, but clearly the guys Federer lost to on average were better than the guys Djokovic lost to...unless you give a 34 year old Federer enough credit to be better than clay Nadal.

It's absolutely fine to argue that Djokovic beat more impressive guys than Federer overall as a general fact and as the other side of the coin, but when someone argue that they won more, lost less, and lost to stronger competition, that's no small thing.

I'll also note that the fact that peak Djokovic was only 5-3 against a 34 year old Federer is crazy impressive...for Federer. It absolutely screams that Federer in his peak body could have at least roughly held his own against Djokovic. People should never convinced themselves that the gap between these two is huge.

As the article said, Federer's the better offensive player (server and hitter of tennis balls) and Djokovic is the better defender (returner, keeper of ball in play) but each is excellent on the other side of the ball too, and age aside, much of what determined who had the edge just had to do with how much the conditions favored offense or defense. If we had the ability to create surfaces as a custom job, there'd essentially be a set of surfaces that favor Federer and a set that favors Djokovic.

[Doctor MJ]

Doctor MJ

Federer’s best season (04/06/07)

Djokovic’s best season (11/15)

Nadal’s best season (8/10/13)

Have a look at the top ten for their respective peers. The ratings there’s a big enough gap. It’s very sound that parity was much bigger at the top during Nadal/Djokovic’s era (multiple slam winners outside of the big three, Fed/Nadal era no one had more than one).

Also to include they’ve all had fantastic pre primes, peaks and post primes. And also overlap share wins against each other at different points in time when the other should be more favored.

06 top ten average age was 24. People may think that it’s prime age for tennis players but I digress. 4 debutants in the top ten etc etc.

2011/2015 were seasoned winners across the board (6.9 seasons in the top ten!) (no one with less than 10 tour titles, even outside the big three, the big three already jumps the ELO etc etc.) In fact the 2015 top ten performed better than the 2006 holistically 1-10.

Djokovic also had double the number of top 5 wins. Median rank vs is a lot lower (20 vs Fed’s 36).

I’m saying Fed results wouldn’t be as favorable against tougher comp. His losses that year were to pre prime players (Nadal/Murray). There is more than double the number of Masters runners up from rank 2-10 (7 vs 3) 15 top ten and the 06 top ten. A staggering 25 more match wins in Slams that year.

You can certainly make a case for all 3. But for sure Djokovic had the harder time of it. He ran into Heavy hitters at basically every event and ended up with an amazing record (more wins inside the top 5, staggering 31 wins vs the top ten) year especially in Record Masters play.

Still don't understand why you're talking about ELO when I'm the only one actually posting links to ELO ratings and you haven't explained where you got your original number from.

Re: Losses to Pre-Prime Nadal/Murray. That's not an honest way to look at Federer's losses. As I pointed out in my last post, Djokovic lost to freaking Karlovic, so get out of here with trying to use Clay Nadal against Federer as if Clay Nadal was somehow not impressive.

[DCasey91]

That 2015 top ten thoroughly outperformed the 2006 top ten to me holistically just more experienced (25 more grand slam wins, masters, titles play etc).

The big three have all time prime at ages 30+.

30+ Federer is straight out better than any level of Roddick even peak Roddick. Nadal is Nadal, Murray is Murray, Wawrinka was playing at his best etc etc.

2011 is just as stacked (could argue that one is the most impressive season ever based on the timelines). 10-1 WL vs Fed and Nadal is crazy.

I think it is an honest way of looking at it. I mean it isn’t a hot take putting Peak aged Nadal/Djokovic in that era at their best and coming away with even or better results in Fed’s peak prime age seasons. Nadal has the RG on lock as a teenager and Djokovic is more live ball (youngest ever to reach semis or higher in history).

Karlovic sure, but you can’t sway from Federer losing to pre prime youngsters. 17 years old, 20 year olds, teenagers. Wasn’t that in Doha? The least important tourney and it’s not even close.

He’s the only one ever to beat every top ten player in a year that season. Basically Peak Wawrinka (War level Wawrinka just decided for a couple of years to go bananas lol) stopped what would be the greatest season ever not close. Still is statistically.

Also Joker beat Fed and the 2,3 seed back before 2008 in a tourney not done since Becker 84. Montreal 07.

Fact is it was a teenager to 21 yr old Nadal or Peak Federer for three years. Can’t sway away from 4 debutants in the top ten in 06 and the Joker straight up won more important events. People say weak era nowadays....

Fed gets 8 out of the top ten in 06 (minus Himself + Nadal)

Djokovic gets 7 out of the top ten in 21 (Minus the trio)

Guess which one has more slams? 2 vs 1 lol and Fed gets an extra top ten player. That is Peak Federer and Old Joker.

In 11 he started the season breaking the all time season starting record and his first lost was in June lol.

Parity and strength is much better years after and Djokovic performed admirably all things considered with the peers he was up against.

The Elo ratings is based on their runs not points results. Massive difference (someone listed the graph on their difficulty of runs).

I mean 20/36 median rank average 06/15 is a big gap, harder comp, and GOAT level results. Record top ten wins, top 5, top3, record masters etc etc.

It’s extremely hard to argue against.

At many points in time Joker had to beat Multi Slam, Multi Masters winning or level players up to 4 times just to win a title lol. Hence why he has 5 out of the 20 of the top seasons ever on points. Then you add the actual comp and it’s a clear gap. I mean the parity is just so much clearer to me.

I don’t know why Fed gets covered on post prime ages or peak ages. Saying it isn’t fair, or honest

Isn’t that double standard for Djokovic then?

People forget pre 21 yr old Federer like it didn’t happen. He was great but age for age is behind Djokovic and obviously Nadal (Goat teenager).

All I’m saying Djokovic has the edge over the two in all surfaces.

Beating Nadal back to back on clay in the finals in 11 is about the hardest thing you could ever do. Fed never did that. Djokovic was also playing with a tapped knee.

As I alluded to earlier they’ve all taken wins of each other at very different points of their career cycle. Favorites, underdogs, pre/post. So it isn’t cut and dry picking specific wins as I’ve done and others. The overall overlap though is more than enough imo.

I mean all of them have 14+ seasons of all time tennis to pour over.

The point I’m trying to make is I prefer Joker over the two on playing all surfaces that’s pretty much it.

I’d say it’s pretty comfortable that Joker would take more wins on clay then Federer would over Nadal. (9% ahead while playing 11 more matches WR). Nadal would obviously skew it duh GOAT clay player no argument from me.

I agree MJ it isn’t a huge gap at all between the three.

For basketball terms it’s 3x Lebron’s over 14+ seasons. But one had to verse 2 Lebron’s (Older Lebron is still Lebron and another a Lebron the Nadal/Joker is the better rivalry to me) and one higher ATG in Murray and a more stacked ten year after year) and a harder comp vs one Lebron (Fed/Nadal era) and not as strong comp.