Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,488 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Obviously neither can compare to goatdal’s dominance at the French, but who is greater/more dominant/better legacy between Nole at the AO and Rogie at Wimby?

Personally I would have to give the nod to Nole at AO since he is perfect in AO finals, while Rogie has managed to lose 3 finals to Nole at Wimby.

discuss
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,366 Posts
Since his first AO title in 2008 Djokovic entered eight finals in thirteen seasons, winning all eight.

In thirteen seasons since his first Wimb Federer entered ten finals winning seven, and also amassed one title and one final thereafter.

AOvic or Wimberer ?

Let's wait for a few more seasons.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,383 Posts
As of now it has to be Nole at AO. He is 8 for 8 in finals and has never lost the tournament once he makes the SF. The one thing Fed has on Djokovic is the amount of times he's been able to make a deep run at Wimbledon, but Djokovic likely has at least a couple more deep runs at the AO left in him.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,488 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Federer is still playing despite your guarantee that he would retire. Discuss.
as I’ve explained on here so many times, 40-15 changed Rogie’s plans - he no longer could go out on that bitter note
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
952 Posts
Probably the edge goes to Nole. The OP has the wrong argument as to why, though. Losing in the quarter or earlier, as opposed to reaching the final, is not the way to boost your resume. Rather, the fact that Federer has been really close to getting more titles at Wimbledon speaks in his favor. To me, the reason Nole has the edge is that his chance of increasing his AO count is better than Federer's chance of increasing his Wimbledon count. When all is said and done, my bet would be that Djokovic has at least one more trophy at his best slam than Federer has at his.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,732 Posts
Probably the edge goes to Nole. The OP has the wrong argument as to why, though. Losing in the quarter or earlier, as opposed to reaching the final, is not the way to boost your resume. Rather, the fact that Federer has been really close to getting more titles at Wimbledon speaks in his favor. To me, the reason Nole has the edge is that his chance of increasing his AO count is better than Federer's chance of increasing his Wimbledon count. When all is said and done, my bet would be that Djokovic has at least one more trophy at his best slam than Federer has at his.
That's a common argument but I think it can be interpreted differently. When a Djokovic / Federer / Nadal lose early, they were just in bad form. On the other hand, when they lose in the final, it can't be said they were in bad form anymore - so if they lose, they were just weaker than the other guy. And if it happens repeatedly, maybe they are just worse players? I'm not saying I agree with it or the other, just saying another view.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,488 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
That's a common argument but I think it can be interpreted differently. When a Djokovic / Federer / Nadal lose early, they were just in bad form. On the other hand, when they lose in the final, it can't be said they were in bad form anymore - so if they lose, they were just weaker than the other guy. And if it happens repeatedly, maybe they are just worse players? I'm not saying I agree with it or the other, just saying another view.
yes, it’s really hard to overlook the fact that Rogie is 0-3 in Wimby finals against Nole. That’s a much bigger black mark than some random early round loss to istomin.

thank god Rogie pulled off a miracle against Benneteau in the 2012 Wimby second round (a match I was at in person) or else he never would have beaten Nole at Wimby at all..:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2MatchPointsDown

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,732 Posts
yes, it’s really hard to overlook the fact that Rogie is 0-3 in Wimby finals against Nole. That’s a much bigger black mark than some random early round loss to istomin.

thank god Rogie pulled off a miracle against Benneteau in the 2012 Wimby second round (a match I was at in person) or else he never would have beaten Nole at Wimby at all..:
Yeah - why is Rafa beating Rogie in Wimbledon F held so highly in regard? Unlike the losses to Darcis or whoever, which are quickly forgotten. People intuitively know the Finals matches are the most important and where legacy is made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Fed was beaten after having a lead against Tsonga and Anderson. Benneteau was really bad, and Fed draws were mediocre and easy. People propagandized his grass results until he believed he was unbeatable. Novak was the superior grass player. Novak never choked on 2 match points and 2 set leads against mugs at Wimbledon or Australia.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,488 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Fed was beaten after having a lead against Tsonga and Anderson. Benneteau was really bad, and Fed draws were mediocre and easy. People propagandized his grass results until he believed he was unbeatable. Novak was the superior grass player. Novak never choked on 2 match points and 2 set leads against mugs at Wimbledon or Australia.
it is a fair argument to say that Nole is the grass goat instead of Rogie, but that is not the purpose of this thread
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
952 Posts
While I am arguing in the opposite direction to some extent, I have to agree there is a lot of truth to the idea by Big Hax and Darth Vaderer, that legacies are formed much more in finals than in earlier rounds. Thus, whether your good effort of reaching the final is helpful or not for your legacy, depends a fair bit on the result in the last match. For example, Rafa's AO tournaments in 2012 and 2019 are viewed much differently. Reaching the 2012 final helps his legacy, in spite of losing the last match, as the overall tournament result suggests he was more or less at the same level on hardcourt as a very good Nole. However, reaching the 2019 final was not really helpful, as the final supported the idea that Rafa cannot compete with Nole on hardcourt. As for Federer, the 2008 RG tournament obviously doesn't help his legacy, in spite of him reaching the final. However, reaching the 2011 RG final surely speaks in his favor. Still, had Federer been utterly destroyed by Rafa in the 2011 RG final, people would probably have forgotten his big win in the semi.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,488 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
While I am arguing in the opposite direction to some extent, I have to agree there is a lot of truth to the idea by Big Hax and Darth Vaderer, that legacies are formed much more in finals than in earlier rounds. Thus, whether your good effort of reaching the final is helpful or not for your legacy, depends a fair bit on the result in the last match. For example, Rafa's AO tournaments in 2012 and 2019 are viewed much differently. Reaching the 2012 final helps his legacy, in spite of losing the last match, as the overall tournament result suggests he was more or less at the same level on hardcourt as a very good Nole. However, reaching the 2019 final was not really helpful, as the final supported the idea that Rafa cannot compete with Nole on hardcourt. As for Federer, the 2008 RG tournament obviously doesn't help his legacy, in spite of him reaching the final. However, reaching the 2011 RG final surely speaks in his favor. Still, had Federer been utterly destroyed by Rafa in the 2011 RG final, people would probably have forgotten his big win in the semi.
this is a fair outlook on my opinion
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,257 Posts
That's a common argument but I think it can be interpreted differently. When a Djokovic / Federer / Nadal lose early, they were just in bad form. On the other hand, when they lose in the final, it can't be said they were in bad form anymore - so if they lose, they were just weaker than the other guy. And if it happens repeatedly, maybe they are just worse players? I'm not saying I agree with it or the other, just saying another view.
But being in bad form isn't excusable either. Injuries are an exception (IMO), but other than that your goal is to be in peak form on the biggest occasions. Failing in that is on you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,681 Posts
Obviously neither can compare to goatdal’s dominance at the French, but who is greater/more dominant/better legacy between Nole at the AO and Rogie at Wimby?

Personally I would have to give the nod to Nole at AO since he is perfect in AO finals, while Rogie has managed to lose 3 finals to Nole at Wimby.

discuss
Isn't it better to have 8 wins and 3 finals than only 8 wins without other finals. It means more consistency. Fedr gave himself more chances to win.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,488 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Isn't it better to have 8 wins and 3 finals than only 8 wins without other finals. It means more consistency. Fedr gave himself more chances to win.
i guess that is part of what is being debated here. But Nole isn’t 0-3 in AO finals against Rogie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Isn't it better to have 8 wins and 3 finals than only 8 wins without other finals. It means more consistency. Fedr gave himself more chances to win.
It's actually 8 wins and 4 other finals. Yes, I agree, 8+4 > 8+0.

Sure, it hurts quite a bit that 3 of those 4 final losses were to the same guy (and his main competition for dominance), but not as much as to turn it into a negative IMO.

Of course, Djokovic is 6 years younger so presumably he'll have more opportunities to make deep runs at AO, but that remains to be seen.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top