Federer was dominant on grass during most of the 2000s. It wouldn't matter if it was Nadal, Djokovic, or Borg - he played some of his best tennis during that period. Saying he's not the best because Nadal wasn't at his peak yet in those years is as pointless a thought experiment as saying Borg is the GOAT because he would've won more slams than anyone if he was bothered to play the Aussie and not retire at 26. Ultimately, you can only look at actual results and not results that may have happened.
Tennis 2018
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Federer was dominant on grass during most of the 2000s. It wouldn't matter if it was Nadal, Djokovic, or Borg - he played some of his best tennis during that period. Saying he's not the best because Nadal wasn't at his peak yet in those years is as pointless a thought experiment as saying Borg is the GOAT because he would've won more slams than anyone if he was bothered to play the Aussie and not retire at 26. Ultimately, you can only look at actual results and not results that may have happened.
Agassi?
Agassi?
Also hilarious that he considers Federer as "unsporting", then proceeds to include McEnroe in his all time top ten list.
I was not aware that there is even a debate about who is the greatest tennis player of all time.
There really isn't one.
Although its interesting that if Djokovic wins tomorrow, he will ostensibly be as close on slams to Nadal as Nadal is to Federer.
This thread is in an infinite time loop with Federer and Goat discussions...
Anyway huge propz to Novak for the great win today, even though I wanted Rafa to win.
He did extremely well in collecting 12 Slams while playing in the same era of the two greatest players of all time. He also leads the head to head against both.
Anyway huge propz to Novak for the great win today, even though I wanted Rafa to win.
He did extremely well in collecting 12 Slams while playing in the same era of the two greatest players of all time. He also leads the head to head against both.
So if Djokovic had played badly today while Nadal played exactly the same way he did and Nadal went on to win that match and Wimbledon, would you then think that he'd be closer to Federer despite the fact he had played exactly the same way?
How does it make any sense to compare the number of Grand Slams won without taking into account the opponents they played against? There is absolutely no way the gap in Slams between these guys accurately reflects their quality throughout their careers.
In overall slams yes. If Rafa won he would be on 18 which is just two behind Federer.
Djokovic could have taken advantage of a weak field with an ageing Federer and Nadal in the last two years but his form ,(and fitness too) deserted him. That's part of your greatness, the ability to remain ridiculously consistent which Federer and Nadal have been able to do. Let's see how well he does when he's 34/36 as well. To win 3 slams at his age is also the kind of context to use.
So much hateThat's all true but I think everyone can agree Federer being on 20 slams while Djokovic is on 12 doesn't accurately reflect their level throughout their careers. It's way too big of a gap. It has to be a bit more nuanced than comparing the number of Grand Slams they've won since that will depend on more than how good they are.
Let's say Federer massively declines from now on and Djokovic wins the next 4 Grand Slams by beating Nadal in the final every time. Without Djokovic, Nadal would have won 22 Grand Slams, 2 above Federer. With Djokovic he'd still be on 17, 3 behind Federer. Even if Federer declines or retires, Nadal and Djokovic will take Grand Slams away from eachother, but if only one of them was around they'd be more likely to surpass his Grand Slam count.
I think it would be a lot fairer and an accurate representation of what this era of tennis was if they finished their careers with a difference of just a couple of Grand Slams between them.
It's all conjecture. If Marcelo and Bale hadnt stepped up Ronaldo would have 3 less CLs and Balon Dors.
Federer has 20 grand slams because he has been an elite player from 23 to 36. Its been 7 or 8 years sinxe Djokovic befame one out of which he was poor for the last 2. Consistency is part of your greatness. You have to actually be good enough to take what opprotunities you get. Djokovic could have steam rolled the field in his absolute pomp with Nadal declining and Federer with no slams for 4.5 years but he wasn't able to. On 12 slams two years back with Federer on the and his clear edge over Nadal, these are just excuses for him not being able to get close to Federer's record. If he's as good at tennis player as Roger let's see him also be brilliant till 35. Not many can do that this way Federer has.
An accurate represtation is the reality rather than the fiction.
Noone judges how good a football player someone is solely on their CL trophies... you certainly don't.
Longevity obviously matters but rating players by counting their slam trophies is stupid. If Djokovic played like crap yesterday, Nadal would most likely have 18 GS. 2 away from Federer. Djokovic played well so Nadal is going to be on 17, 3 away from Federer. The exact same could easily happen at the US Open and so on. So Nadal could be judged completely differently depending on who he's facing, rather than what his actual level is. This means there's an obvious problem with judging how good a player is by counting their Slam trophies, especially in a sport where the strength of the field varies a lot.
Djokovic not being in great form when the field was weak is exactly what I'm talking about. Players don't just choose when they were born or when they're in form to play against weaker fields, it simply happens. Federer has had his poorer years too. Federer has won 3 Grand Slams in a year playing worse tennis than he did in years where he just won 1 or 2
I understand you're a big Federer fan but in the future there will be a tennis player worse than him that will easily win more Grand Slams simply because he won't have a Djokovic or Nadal to play against and then you'll agree with me.
Federer went 3/4 in 2004, 2006 and 07. *Maybe* your argument might hold for 2004, I haven't seen enough to argue.
I find it really hard to believe he's ever been better than 2007 or particularly 2006: whatever the opposition, this level is amazing:
edit - forgot to add this
Last edited:
@Nikhil
Feel free to vote for Nadal or Djokovic in the Greatest Sportsman of All Time thread
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-greatest-athlete-sportsman-of-all-time-poll-added.439568/
Feel free to vote for Nadal or Djokovic in the Greatest Sportsman of All Time thread
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-greatest-athlete-sportsman-of-all-time-poll-added.439568/
A fair discussion to have honestly-who you're up against does matter.
On the flip side I think it's why Fed will always be underrated on clay actually. How many times did he lose to the goat clay player in finals? If Nadal wasn't around the same time as Fed, or even a few years later, Federer would have won at Roland Garros long before 2009-lost the semi to Nadal in 2005, then makes the next 4 finals including 2009, then the 2011 final
I'm not completely judging anyone solely by their GrandSlam count thought. Quality, longevity, asthetics/entertainment, flair/attacking approach etc. all come in to play. IMO Djokovic is well behind Federer in almost every aspect apart from his best level which is usually close for all the greats. Sampras at his peak would also give all of these players a torrid time. It doesn't mean he's the greatest ever.
However at the same time Grand Slam count is reflective of your quality and greatness and there's no doubt about that.
Either way, let's just enjoy the tennis we get to watch from these three fantastic players rather than repeating a worn out argument. Good to see Djokovic back competing again.
Djokovic's peak was at higher level than Federer and Nadal. Absolutely amazing in 2011, 2015 and 2016 when the era was toughest. It should be obvious to anyone unbiased and who has watched tennis for last couple of decades. Elo ratings prove it too:
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings
The highest mean opponent elo ratings in winning slams also unsurprisingly has Djokovic featuring the most:
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/record?recordId=HighestTitleGrandSlamOpponentEloRating
Equally unsurprising that Federer's highest mean opponent elo rating is ranked well below, with 2010 AO being the best in this regard. I mean, Fed fanbois can think of 2004-07 as toughest era with Federer beating mighty Gonzalez and Baghdatis along with whipping boy Roddick regularly but objectively speaking that doesn't hold true.
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings
The highest mean opponent elo ratings in winning slams also unsurprisingly has Djokovic featuring the most:
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/record?recordId=HighestTitleGrandSlamOpponentEloRating
Equally unsurprising that Federer's highest mean opponent elo rating is ranked well below, with 2010 AO being the best in this regard. I mean, Fed fanbois can think of 2004-07 as toughest era with Federer beating mighty Gonzalez and Baghdatis along with whipping boy Roddick regularly but objectively speaking that doesn't hold true.
No one has thought that ever. Except you in this post apparently.
Djokovic can keep his 'peak rating' award. Meanwhile, Federer and Nadal will be content by merely being better tennis players.
You know all Federer fanbois around the world? And know that it's not been said? I mean even here I have seen arguments downplaying the huge difference between the relative strength of field when Federer was stacking up slams in 04-07 and the era after that.
You're speaking of people outside this thread. Seems rather irrelevant.
Federer has won slams throughout his career. The field being ''easy' early on becomes a rad ireleveant given he's been able to dominate at 36 too, and considering his actual level during that period which was absurd.
As mentioned above, whatever Federer did early in his career, allegedly with no competition, is easily balanced out by the fact that he has won slams at the age of 35 and 36, which is well beyond when most tennis players retire, much less win slams. So all things said, Federer's late surge in his mid 30s should balance things out.
If you read back thread, you will see arguments downplaying the crap field of era when Federer stacked up slams. So it is not irrelevant.
Yes he has won slams throughout but least of the 3 players in question when era was toughest. He is not being called crap here but it is about questioning "undeniably GOAT" narrative which he is not, at least undisputably. Maybe by slightest of margins as of now.
No it doesn't balance it out. Those 3 titles hold more worth than from the easy period earlier obviously and Federer got little lucky as well with all big ones except Nadal suffering with injuries simultaneously. Still it was great achievement to win those titles so late in his career. In summary, he was still far better than anyone except Nadal and Novak in last decade but given how those two routinely dominated him in slams puts question mark over his "undisputed GOAT" status.
2011, for sure(and it's why I think Fed's French Open win over him then is one of his best ever).
2015? Federer was quite old by now -34- and still made 2 finals, Nadal's form was probably the worst of his career, and Murray was as always beatable by the big 3 in slams.
2016? He dominated the 1st half (AO, French), and his decline started after that. Overall Murray had an equally good season (Wimbledon, Finals, Olympics vs French+Australian). Nadal and Federer were both injured/off-form for large parts of the season.
There's no dispute about his GOAT status since he has more slams, career titles, and was at number 1 considerably longer than the other two. Short of catching him on slams, there's literally nothing the other two could ever do to change that.
By enough of margin. Definitely by a good margin over Djokovic who has to work his way up again, clearly.
It's perfectly fine to downplay the weak field while acknowledging its existance, given everyone has had 'easy' slam wins, Federer has managed to win throughout his career and into his mid 30s, and the actual level he played at in that period which was freakishly good. It's fine if you wish to trash those achievements but expecting everyone else to do it and reacting they refuse to, seems a bit much.
Of course it has nothing to do with Federer's game. We definitely can't credit Federer for the actual reason for being as fit/timeless as he seems to be. It must be down to some inane thing called luck. Because we dislike him. Good one.
The winning of slams at age 36 is truly mindboggling.
Federer being "quite old" doesn't hold substance if he still can win slams later. You can't paint it both ways. Otherwise Federer's last 3 slams win which were hugely helped by injuries all over ATP circuit are also pointless. I think it was 2016 itself when the points Novak amassed throughout year are highest ever. The guys like Murray and Stan were also doing well in this period. Only Nadal was having issues then.
The peak Elo rating of Novak is from 2016 and he has two slams I think, one each from 2015-16 in top 20 in that "highest mean opponent rating" list. I do personally prefer his 2011 though but 2015-16 domination was also incredible.
That's your opinion contrary to the logical arguments otherwise.
Why don't we apply the wave function equation to see who the true goat is.
Ultimately no one will care about these excuses 15-20 years down the road. The overarching question will always be who won more slams. If its Federer then he is the greatest. Hypotheticals, math equations, and thought experiments will be long forgotten in lieu of actual hard accomplishments.
If you have ability to read, read the next line after that. If I disliked him I wouldn't have called him the GOAT by small margins for now. I was desperate for him to reach 18 when he was stuck on 17. A fanboi like you is never capable of understanding logical arguments to contrary. So you can conveniently ignore the facts and come up with trash like "Fed is GOAT by big margins."
You can try that
. For now I am going with Elo+ other factors. You Fed fans are truly insecure. I mean here is someone who is still putting him ahead of pack even after giving so many evidences to contrary and yet you are so desperate to have him called undisputed GOAT. Which he is not.You just go about "no one will care" line when so many out there do, including non-fans who look at it objectively.
You can try that
Its not about being a Fed or a Rafa fan. Its about who has won more grand slams, more tournaments, and has held the number one ranking the longest. Those are actual tangible things that can be compared.
There's nothing objective about your approach if you are brining non-accomplishments into the mix. Its myself and @amolbhatia50k who are being objective here.
There are other tangibles like h2h and strength of field (yes it is tangible), which you conveniently ignore.
H2H are definitely relevant. They would however mean more if two players were tied on slams. No one is prepared to say Djokovic and his 12 slams is the greatest when there's another player with 20 slams, even if the player with 12 slams has a slight H2H lead on him.
- Status