Damn eating into my world cup final time. Just a tiebreak away for Novak..
Tennis 2018
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
As if you’re watching this over the final.
I have no vested interest in either final so might as well finish off the final set here.
Djok wins. Congrats to him.
I zapped between the 2, watch the breaker and missed the 1-1
Very happy for Novak. Glad he's back. Completely changes the dynamic going into the Open.
Well played Novak. Fairly easy final, but it's good for tennis that he's back playing at a high level again.
Novak and Nadal aren't better now than when they were in teens? Nadal's last USO was statistically also one of easiest. Here, Anderson has reached final beating GOAT. So blame the GOAT for Anderson making final.
Dimitrov was never good enough, same with Raonic. Given in last couple of years, when players were injured most, Federer has 3 titles, you should question the quality of his titles more than any of Djokovic's.
Nadal's last USO was statistically also one of easiest. Here, Anderson has reached final beating GOAT. So blame the GOAT for Anderson making final.
Dimitrov was never good enough, same with Raonic. Given in last couple of years, when players were injured most, Federer has 3 titles, you should question the quality of his titles more than any of Djokovic's.
Nadal and Djokovic aren't better than they were till 2013, which was the point of argument mate.
Nadal's biggest clay streak - 81 match win streak on clay courts came bang in the middle of Fed's domination, something he wasn't able to come close ever since. And it's not like the clay field has improved significantly either.
in 2013 Federer was non factor, and since then the pool isn't that great. Nadal racked up 3-5 slams from there on with only Djokovic being his peer. Djokovic - 7. So if you start putting asterix for the slams won by Fed in 04-07, you can easily do the same for Djokovic and Nadal. The clay field is really weak which helped Nadal winning back to back RG's, same with last year USO where if you look at the players faced tells a lot about the competition for that tournament.
It helped Federer as well winning 3 slams, but he's the least "advantage" from those 3.
Anderson beat 37 years old Federer. We can't expect him to maintain a level like in his 20's. Sure he can have a hot streak here and there but isn't capable of doing what he did 10 years ago.
The reason why he, and Nadal and Djokovic for that matter, are still going and winning slams is because the young generation just couldn't challenge and especially in slams are pretty useless.
Take Zverev for example - winner of 3 MS and 2 finals. Yet 1 QF in slams and losing to guys like Gulbis (with a bagel no less), Chung (again bagel), Coric, Verdasco, etc.
Djoko at his peak beat peak Nadal consistently. I don't think it is controversial to say that his peak is one of the best in the game (at least top3). Always hard to single out the best.
Peak Borg, Federer, and Djokovic were the best imo. Nadal just behind them.
Well the discussion was about Nadal and Djokovic in teens in first place which was till 2006-07. Of course in 2013 they were doing better than now.
Federer wasn't non-entity in 2013. Federer couldn't beat them since he turned 29 doesn't equate to him being non-entity. If he was non-entity then, he would have retired by now. What was happening was simple. He didn't know how to beat them but he could beat others. Pretty much like before 2008.
The young ones get judged very harshly due to success of these 3. Before these 3 only Laver and Agassi had completed career grand slam. These 3 have elevated game well above all and have hunger and ability to still go on and we expect young ones to replicate it.
Coming back to era comparison, there was no one of quality of even Stan and Murray in 2004-07 and hence the overall competition was weaker. There was only one guy well above others, except on clay. Then from 2008 3 guys were competing equally and Nadal-Djokovic had more success. Also, overall field improved with presence of likes of Stan and Murray. Hence titles in last decade, whoever won, are rated better. It is not something I am saying, you will find many studies around where the comparitive study of era was done and very validly imo.
Come on mate, Wawrinka now being tougher competition for Federer?
Federer is 20-3 vs Wawrinka and even 1 of those wins came in 06. Peak Federer brushes aside Wawrinka simple as. Same with Murray, he's 5-1 against him at slams.
Federer was non-entity in 2013. He won 1 title and made it to 3 finals. Along 2016 that's his worst year since 2001. He lost to Tsonga at RG of all places, Stakhovsky at Wimbledon - worst outing since 2002 there, Robredo at the USO - worst outing since 2003. So no - it wasn't due to losing to Nadal or Djokovic - far from it, he couldn't even get to them.
On a side note, how is that Wawrinka - one of the supposed great competitors made it past the 4th round till 13' only 4 times out of 36 attempts?
A supposedly great player who was losing to journeman before 2014 when he won his first slam. Could it be the competition getting worse and him exploiting that?
ELO forumla etc...in 3...2....1.....
@The Man Himself
Fed in 2013 lost to Murray (only loss in Slams), Benneteau, Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga, Stakhovksy in Wimbledon 2R, Daniel Brands(?), Robredo, Monfils, and del Potro *indoors*. He was shit. His only win was Halle (250 event). He had a big change (coaching) in 2014.
Fed in 2013 lost to Murray (only loss in Slams), Benneteau, Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga, Stakhovksy in Wimbledon 2R, Daniel Brands(?), Robredo, Monfils, and del Potro *indoors*. He was shit. His only win was Halle (250 event). He had a big change (coaching) in 2014.
I don't know why you are confusing Wawrinka record vs Federer with strength of competition. How does that relate? Wawrinka probably 5th best player in last decade. How does it compare with 5th best of 2004-07? That is your comparitive part.
Yes, he won just one final. Precisely because he couldn't do better. Which is the whole point that he wasn't his invincible self of 2004-07 when competition got tougher. If you want to call it non-entity it certainly wasn't because of age.
Well my point is non-entity argument shouldn't be extended to age and other factors afterwards. Djokovic has been average for more than a year, Nadal had bad period, so that happens. If we strictly talk about period when all 3 were playing well, Federer was still 3rd best.
We can keep on repeating and branching out in multiple directions but I want to remind my central point behind all this again. That Federer is not undisputable GOAT. If he is, it is by small margins. If Federer fans say no, he is way ahead, then all points stated are counter to that. They are not counter to his career otherwise which is best in tennis history as of now.
It wasn't because of age, it was because of form, back injuries and so forth. So yeah he was pretty much non existent that year, same as Murray in the last year or so.
The Wawrinka comparison relates to that he couldn't even break it into slam SF till the age of 28, then all of the sudden he began making slam finals everywhere.
At 28 he was far from teenager don't you agree? Same with Rafter. Pretty much a journeyman till his late 20's yet when Sampras was beginning to slow down and Agassi was AWOL he began making finals.
Wawrinka top level isn't better to some of the other competitors in 04-07 whose name aren't Nadal or Federer.
A 5th best player in the last decade with a record against Federer as good as Roddick who gets dissed as weak competition, how does that compute?
Seriously? Who are these guys? Wawrinka's 2014 AO is ranked toughest win ever. His 2015 FO is in top 10. Who are these greats from 2004-07 who were better?
Roddick is supposed to be the best or 2nd best competition to Fed from 2004-06. Not 5th. Now where does best or 2nd best competition post 2008 ranks? That will be one of top 3. How then Roddick compares? I mean one can't even think who is 5th best of early 2000s or till 2007, such inconsistent field it was.
He is the undisputed GOAT.
20 slams - 3 more than the next in line
30 finals - 6 more than the next in line
43 SF's - 11 more than the next in line
10 consecutive finals, next in line is again Federer with 8.
23 consecutive semi finals - Djokovic second with 14.
36 consecutive QF's - Djokovic next with 28.
Most times winner in 3 out of the 4 slams - one outright.
98 career titles, Nadal is with 19 less.
214 wins over top 10 opponents, next is Djokovic with 184
6 times WTF winner - more than Djokovic and Nadal COMBINED
310 weeks at #1, Djokovic is next with 223.
I don't know about ELO but that's a compelling case for undisputed GOAT and by some distance I might add.
Why Wawrinka didn't make it to slam SF before turning 28 since the competition was so weak, genuine question?
What difference would Wawrinka make in 04-07 since he can't beat even 35+ years old Federer?
His level got better afterwards. Still he was good enough to win 3 titles, all beating Djokovic or Nadal. No one from 2004-07 was that good, to beat all time best players, thrice for titles.
For upteenth time, if you want to put peak Wawrinka in 04-07, you also need to put peak Rafa, peak Andy and peak Djokovic there. At least 3 of these 4 at peak. It is NOT about Wawrinka vs Fed h2h. We are NOT discussing whether Federer is better or Wawrinka.
The simple fact that most of those records are thanks to the easy field of 2004-07 makes the case for undisputable GOAT very weak.
The numbers speak for themselves. You can't take 20 slams and say but x or y. They are still 20 slams
Yes they are 20 slams. We can definitely discuss though if x was tougher or y.
And those discussions are all subjective. The 20 slams bit is real.
His level got better afterwards because the competition was way worse.
Did Gaudio level got better since his early 20's?
You can make the same claim with the field post 2013.
Again how does Wawrinka makes the field better in 04-07 since he can't take even a set off 35 years old Federer in some of the recent matches?
Not all subjective. There have been studies to quantify it with good effect.
If Federer-Djokovic-Nadal-Murray presence along with likes of Cilic is worse competition then we may as well as make period of 04-07 void.
Last edited:
There are no studies that contradict objective reality...unless of course you live in alternate universe where facts don't matter.
He makes field better by being lot better than whoever was 5th best in 04-07. He could win title in 2014, in 2015 and 2016, Federer played in 2 of those 3 competitions. Semi final straight set loss to finalist to Stan in 2014, QF straight set loss in 2015 (to who else, Wawrinka, again in straight sets). So maybe Fed would find it tougher than any random clown he faced during 2004-07 while facing Wawrinka and after getting through, will have to take out Nadal and then Djokovic. Of course that will bring down the stacked count of 10-11 titles.
Last edited:
I have given proof which you choose to ignore with your 'objective reality' counter of "nobody will care.." when clearly lots of people do.
@crappycraperson
Nadal pulverised young Djokovic: by 2009, the H2H was 14-4.
Djoko had a string of wins in 2011 , by AO 2012 the H2H was very close, 14-16.
Then after that they shared wins till 2015/16 (when Nadal declined a lot), and then Djokoic pulled ahead from 20-23 to 26-23.
So I am not sure if he beat "peak Nadal consistently." In 2008 Nadal was dominant against a very good Djokovic, reversed in 2011, and they were even in 2012-14.
Nadal pulverised young Djokovic: by 2009, the H2H was 14-4.
Djoko had a string of wins in 2011 , by AO 2012 the H2H was very close, 14-16.
Then after that they shared wins till 2015/16 (when Nadal declined a lot), and then Djokoic pulled ahead from 20-23 to 26-23.
So I am not sure if he beat "peak Nadal consistently." In 2008 Nadal was dominant against a very good Djokovic, reversed in 2011, and they were even in 2012-14.
Scenario #1 - Federer retires tomorrow. Nadal and Djokovic keep a high level and play in the final of the next 9 slams. Djokovic wins 6, Nadal wins 3.
Federer - 20 slams, Nadal - 19 slams, Djokovic - 19 slams. Federer is the greatest.
Scenario #2 - Federer retires tomorrow. Djokovic gets injured. Nadal wins 4 slams and then starts playing like crap and retires.
Nadal - 21 slams, Federer - 20 slams Djokovic - 13 slams. Nadal is the greatest.
Do you see the problem with this? How much they win depends on more than their level of play and their consistency. Not that Federer isn't the best, I think as of now looking at his entire career he is. I just don't think the difference in Grand Slam trophies between them accurately shows the difference between them.
You are just putting up names mate. Federer at 35-36 beats peak Cilic. Again don’t see how peak Federer won’t beat him even easier in 04-07.
Murray hasn’t played in what an year?
Nadal level over the past 4-5 years has been much worse than 10 years ago.
Cilic also thrashed Federer in straight sets few years ago when Federer was younger. Just shows how difficult this part decade has been. 2004-07 stands nowhere close.
Not sure what you are on about. IIRC he beat Nadal in 3 consecutive GS finals. Nadal was definitely at his peak then and should have beaten Novak in Oz open final at least. Novak was just playing freak tennis at that point though.
No problem with this at all. Whoever has the most slams will always receive overwhelming sentiment as being the GOAT. Unless of course we apply the elo formula
So it took Federer 6 years to win a grand slam in his thirties. Novak and Nadal have managed it at 31. Interesting if they can carry it on.
During the week, before the semi, I felt Nadal would go on and win it and end the fortnight on 18. From there I struggled to see him not winning another couple at the French which would have levelled it and meant that Federer would have needed another 1 or 2 to finish ahead of Nadal.
I still think Nadal will win those French Opens, but now, if Djokovic genuinely is back at near his previous level - and the second week particularly would suggest that - it’s going be harder for either Federer or Nadal to pick up the odd ‘easier’ slam (I use the word advisedly before anyone starts with the internet bellendery) where the draw collapses or their main rivals get taken out beforehand. Particularly so for Federer who obviously has age going against him, plus he’ll only be a factor in 3 of the 4.
If and it’s obviously a big if, the real Djokovic is back, then I think he won’t end up a millions miles short of Federer/Nadal/whoever it is at the time. He could easily get to 18 or so with another 2-3 couple of years.
I still think Nadal will win those French Opens, but now, if Djokovic genuinely is back at near his previous level - and the second week particularly would suggest that - it’s going be harder for either Federer or Nadal to pick up the odd ‘easier’ slam (I use the word advisedly before anyone starts with the internet bellendery) where the draw collapses or their main rivals get taken out beforehand. Particularly so for Federer who obviously has age going against him, plus he’ll only be a factor in 3 of the 4.
If and it’s obviously a big if, the real Djokovic is back, then I think he won’t end up a millions miles short of Federer/Nadal/whoever it is at the time. He could easily get to 18 or so with another 2-3 couple of years.
- Status