Choke at least 5 winnable slams and countless other masters/WTF and then there was the wastage of 2 years between 2001 and 2003 Wimbledon's where he should've already started winning slams
Djoker is a a better claycourter than Federer,He is on clay. Had all the skills to beat Nadal but was surprised to see some of his better shots coming back, which resulted in mental doubts. Djokovic on the other hand showed how it could be done, despite not being a better clay courter than Federer.
Better mentally, but that's it. Fed at Rome '06 would have beaten peak Djokovic, and ended his invincible season at RG 11. 'Faster balls' is a myth. But credit to Djokovic, he proved Nadal was not superhuman on clay, and Federer should have done the same.Djoker is a a better claycourter than Federer,
as evidenced by his 4 Rome titles and 2 Monte Carlo titles, and numerous clay court victories over Nadal.
He should have won RG in 2011 if not for the faster balls used, and a peaking Fed for the semifinal.
but in the sense of skill he certainly is an overachiever. Think about it that way. All aspects of the game like serve, forehand, movement, Defense, fitness, netplay had to be so polished and over the top that he could compensate for his god-awful backhand which I consider to be one of the worst on tour for the last 20 years.