Congrats to Djokovic. It'd be funny now if he loses on Sunday after doing all the hard work, like 2015.
Tennis 2021
- Thread starter Sean_RedDevil
- Start date
There are slight parallels too. Tsitsipas is a one-handed BH player who has come through a relatively easy draw. Tsitsipas has been very good this entire clay season but I don't think he's going to be mentally strong enough vs Novak in a Grand Slam final.
Bit harsh on the next generation I feel. Tsisipas and Zverev when it's all said and done might have as many grand slams as an Andy Murray. And I expect big things out of Sinner and Musseti though they're technically next next Gen. The quality of mens tennis as a whole feels very high at the moment.
I'd argue that Murray's slams are worth more considering the players he was competing against. Murray was a mortal who battled with the gods (and did a more than admirable job).
Possibly and they'd do very well to match Murray in terms of achievements. I'd just cut them a bit of slack considering they're still in their early twenties( 22 & 24 for tsisipas and zverev) and I find their quality of tennis very high. They' will probably win a couple slams each and in any non triple goat era that's a very solid achievement. Marat Safin , one of my favorite players won only two slams for eg.
Djokovic is the GOAT
djokovic annihilates Federer. Federer has gone by way of Sampras. He’s #3 all time.
Karlović is the GOAT.
But Isner will catch him up.
But Isner will catch him up.
I don't really think this is an argument, one of the most subjective debates in sport when it comes to Roger Federer. Djokovic has taken on both Nadal and Federer and conquered them, at their best. He will rightfully be the GOAT.
I honestly don’t really care too much for the GOAT talk any more. If I had the choice to watch any in their prime it would be Fed on grass, but I think Novak has surpassed him overall. Especially considering Federer picked up GS’s against likes of Roddick and Phillippoussis (that spelling does not look right) early in his career.
Last night was the first time I felt like I didn’t really care who won, that third set just felt like a huge sporting moment. Then came a reminder in the fourth that we’ve been so lucky over the last 10 years, but it’s coming to an end soon.
Last night was the first time I felt like I didn’t really care who won, that third set just felt like a huge sporting moment. Then came a reminder in the fourth that we’ve been so lucky over the last 10 years, but it’s coming to an end soon.
Nadal was the (only) one who "conquered" peak Federer. Djoko rarely faced him at the time, and his record when he did wasn't great.
Nadal is 8-6 vs pre-2008 Federer. It went up to 23-10 as Nadal destroyed post-peak Fed from 2008-13, and old man Fed does better against old man Nadal so it's ended at 16-24.
6-1 for Federer vs Djokovic before 2008, and Federer didn't give up the H2H lead till 2015, when he was way past his best. Djokovic has regularly destroyed him since 2012, but that's not "at his best."
Since people quibble about "peak":
I think 04-07 is easy to define as Federer's peak, not just 8/12 slams, but also his dominance in general: win percentages of 92, 95, 95, 88, which he hasn't touched since. (It's between 72-85 since then, with the only exception being 91% in his 2017 comeback year). Besides the numbers, there is the subjective eye test, but nobody agrees about that. People can argue that he won fewer slams since 08 since Nadal and Djoko became better, but he also started losing to others more frequently - in short, his level fell.
I think part of the problem in defining (any of their) peaks is that they still regularly beat others even when they're not near their best. But watching what 2007 and 08 Nadal did to Federer on his favourite grass, especially his court coverage and passing shots, I really don't think the guy who played yesterday is close to that level. And even though Fed was very dominant against the field in 2017, he would've been swept aside by the 2006 version's forehand power and speed.
They should all end on 20 slams so people on the internet can argue about it until the end of time.
Personally I think Federer is the natural ability goat, Nadal the clay goat (though he's much more than just a clay specialist) and Djokovic is the efficiency goat.
They're all goats to me, meeeeehhhhh. What do goats say in English anyway?
Personally I think Federer is the natural ability goat, Nadal the clay goat (though he's much more than just a clay specialist) and Djokovic is the efficiency goat.
They're all goats to me, meeeeehhhhh. What do goats say in English anyway?
Bet you think footballers in the past are better because they played in poor pitches.
For the goat talk people will inevitably turn to grand slams and head to heads and rightly so but just as a tennis fan they all have amazing skill sets:
Federer at his peak has to me the best serve out of the three. He has an incredible forehand and backhand ( i don't really care if its one handed or two handed, it's about how good it is). Great touch around the net, best serve and volleyer, and he just makes everything look so effortless. I'd say he has the technique you'd most want a young player to copy.
Nadal has the best forehand in the game for me. The topspin he generates is insane, his movement and hustle legendary. Amazing volleys and smashes and lobs. Just an all round beast and at his peak hard to imagine someone beating him.
Then you have Djokovic who to me has the best backhand and return of serve possibly ever. He matches the hustle of Nadal and the creativity of federer. Where he seperates himself for me though is mentally. So much of tennis is being clutch in the pressure moments and reading what your opponent wants to do and Nole does that better than anyone i've seen. He influences how others play against him so much( nadal comes close), you constantly have to hit the lines to beat him. It's the classic Tom Brady vs Aaron rodgers/Patrick Mahomes debate(thats a team sport so the comparision isn't as exact) You could easily say the latter two are more talented( they have stronger arms and better mobility) however so much of quarterback play is again reading your opponent in clutch moments and that mental strength, which for me is why he is the goat.
All three have pushed the limits of tennis further and we are very lucky to see all these amazing matches for almost two decades now.
Federer at his peak has to me the best serve out of the three. He has an incredible forehand and backhand ( i don't really care if its one handed or two handed, it's about how good it is). Great touch around the net, best serve and volleyer, and he just makes everything look so effortless. I'd say he has the technique you'd most want a young player to copy.
Nadal has the best forehand in the game for me. The topspin he generates is insane, his movement and hustle legendary. Amazing volleys and smashes and lobs. Just an all round beast and at his peak hard to imagine someone beating him.
Then you have Djokovic who to me has the best backhand and return of serve possibly ever. He matches the hustle of Nadal and the creativity of federer. Where he seperates himself for me though is mentally. So much of tennis is being clutch in the pressure moments and reading what your opponent wants to do and Nole does that better than anyone i've seen. He influences how others play against him so much( nadal comes close), you constantly have to hit the lines to beat him. It's the classic Tom Brady vs Aaron rodgers/Patrick Mahomes debate(thats a team sport so the comparision isn't as exact) You could easily say the latter two are more talented( they have stronger arms and better mobility) however so much of quarterback play is again reading your opponent in clutch moments and that mental strength, which for me is why he is the goat.
All three have pushed the limits of tennis further and we are very lucky to see all these amazing matches for almost two decades now.
Moment of the night, gotta love the French bending rules 
Not convinced by this, there's a argument Djokovic is the best defender of all time tbh.
He played Busta, Medvedev and Zverev in three consecutive games, not sure how that is a relatively easy draw? 3 of the top 12 whilst Busta is close to getting intotop 10 in the rankings.
Last edited:
Djokovic might be the best athlete in the world in terms of mental aspect.
Funny that you're ignoring those matches were not near a 'peak' Djokovic either... In their first meeting a 18/19 Djokovic took Federer to three sets. He also beat 'peak' Federer in a masters final aged 20.
Again ignoring Federer's early H2H advantage at the start was against a non peak Djokovic. A young Djokovic stood up well against peak Federer in the 2007 US Open final, lost first two sets narrowly. A peak Djokovic wins that title in 2007.
A 20/21 year old Djokovic beat a peak 25/26 year old Federer in straight sets in the Australian Open in 2008. Let's not rewrite history and act like Federer's wins were all against a peak Djokovic and Djokovic only defeated a past it Federer. So far from the truth.
His peak was 04-07 when the field was weaker. Having to defeat some of the best of all time in Safin, Roddick, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, an over the hill Agassi. Bar Tsonga and Kevin Anderson Djokovic had to compete with and beat 3 of the best ever in Nadal, Federer and Murray. A strong Wawrinka as well.
It’s irrelevant what I think about footballers this is a debate about the greatest tennis player. My opinion and it won’t be changed is that Federer is the greatest that I’ve seen.
Bet you think footballers in the past are better because they played in poor pitches.
You may want to engage In spurious debates with someone else
only Novak can recover mentally after that demoralizing start, especially after last year's final. simply ridiculous level of play after that first set. Tsitsipas will be very dangerous opponent after such a physically and emotionally draining match, as he most likely won't and can't inspire similar level from Djokovic like Nadal and Fed usually do. in any case, I see Djokovic winning in 4 sets.
total number of slams, masters and head to head aside, both Nadal and Nole now have achievement that Fed can't really compare to; Nole beat Nadal in RG twice while Fed never had the chance here against him, losing every match. on the other hand, Nadal managed to beat peak Fed at Wimbledon.
total number of slams, masters and head to head aside, both Nadal and Nole now have achievement that Fed can't really compare to; Nole beat Nadal in RG twice while Fed never had the chance here against him, losing every match. on the other hand, Nadal managed to beat peak Fed at Wimbledon.
I think that is a very good point. I don’t think I’ve seen a player with that ability since maybe Connors at his peak who you felt you’d have to kill to beat him. But Novak is the best in that regard.
I observation I made here last night when some were gloating that he should give up after that first set; hang on a moment, tennis is five sets and he’ll fight to the death
This very much looks like Federer had a very short peak then, which coincided with a period where the competition was much worse than what Nadal/Djokovic faced. Maybe that's a main argument to not regard him as GOAT despite his nice style of play.
It doesn't but you're being a snob here, which is really the point.
What about defensive baseline plays? Hate then too?
Every argument I’ve seen thus far can be countered for all 3, and they’ve been good arguments too
The variables are seemingly endless
As a Fed Fan, knowing this will most likely be his last year imo, I’m just delighted tennis will atleast still have Djokovic and Nadal for atleast another few more years, their quality has yet to be replicated by any player (except briefly by Murray imo) and it’ll be a huge race for other players to step onto these Gods pathway to greatness
I just hope atleast that before Djokovic and Nadal go, we have the time to have the Likes of Tsitsipas and Musetti to hopefully start creating shockwaves for us all to look forward to and keep men’s tennis in safe hands along with Medvedev, Zverev and Berrettini
I’m praying these guys have more gears because tennis at its finest like what we’ve seen from Federer Djokovic and Nadal is imo the finest sport on the planet
The variables are seemingly endless
As a Fed Fan, knowing this will most likely be his last year imo, I’m just delighted tennis will atleast still have Djokovic and Nadal for atleast another few more years, their quality has yet to be replicated by any player (except briefly by Murray imo) and it’ll be a huge race for other players to step onto these Gods pathway to greatness
I just hope atleast that before Djokovic and Nadal go, we have the time to have the Likes of Tsitsipas and Musetti to hopefully start creating shockwaves for us all to look forward to and keep men’s tennis in safe hands along with Medvedev, Zverev and Berrettini
I’m praying these guys have more gears because tennis at its finest like what we’ve seen from Federer Djokovic and Nadal is imo the finest sport on the planet
On reflection
Its a great shame that the only challenger, the only true challenger to the great 3 had to have his body fail him in Andy Murray
we finally had someone playing at their level, taking the world ranking number 1 spot for a period and winning a few (3 slams)
Stan Wawrinka also comes close for a period, also bagging 3 slams against Nadal once and Djokovic twice, but his best game was never on that level for me, Murray’s (although brief) was
Just goes to show the height of the standards those three have set, almost too high if anything
Its a great shame that the only challenger, the only true challenger to the great 3 had to have his body fail him in Andy Murray
we finally had someone playing at their level, taking the world ranking number 1 spot for a period and winning a few (3 slams)
Stan Wawrinka also comes close for a period, also bagging 3 slams against Nadal once and Djokovic twice, but his best game was never on that level for me, Murray’s (although brief) was
Just goes to show the height of the standards those three have set, almost too high if anything
For all the sneering, aesthetics and style do matter and should be factored in discussions about greatness. There's a reason why we watch tennis instead of just reading the results next day.
And can we stop calling the next gen an embarrassment because they don't look like winning 20 Grand Slams? Tsipitas has now reached 3 GS semis, a GS final and won the year-end championship. In a pre-big 3 era, he'd be considered an absolute star. All these guys are solid players - just not as good as the big 3.
And can we stop calling the next gen an embarrassment because they don't look like winning 20 Grand Slams? Tsipitas has now reached 3 GS semis, a GS final and won the year-end championship. In a pre-big 3 era, he'd be considered an absolute star. All these guys are solid players - just not as good as the big 3.
No better chance for Tsitsipas to win a GS than this. His best service and he's the most in form player.
Disappointed about Nadal, but was kinda expecting given he wasn't in great form beforehand. Hoping he can win 1 more at least, but seems unlikely.
Disappointed about Nadal, but was kinda expecting given he wasn't in great form beforehand. Hoping he can win 1 more at least, but seems unlikely.
Last edited:
How would you capture individual artistic skills? How do you capture Art with numbers? 'cause that's what pushed Maradona to the G.O.A.T debate.
I actually remember Tony Nadal talking about the style when discussing GOAT debates, about the combination of elegance and effectiveness with Federer.
If it's only, or mainly about stats, Maradona wouldn't be in the top 50 probably! Sounds ridiculous, right? It sounds so because of the insane aesthetic quality that Maradona exhibiited and touched our hearts and minds.
But even if we limit G.O.A.T discussion to stats, why only Grand Slams? What about ATP finals, where you win by beating 3-5 top 8 players in the world? it's sometimes, or may be usually, harder than winning a slam! What about ATP 1000? Or 500? What about total number of trophies won, and the duration in which you won them? How about duration you stayed at the top as world number 1?
How do you compare differenet eras? Surely, if you seek an objective view you have to factor in the advances in sports medicine, for example? the level of competition? etc..
What if Rod Laver was not banned from GSs?, because back then GS were inferior tournemants, while Laver wanted to be a professional! Yeah,GSs, which we incorrectly use to assess G.O.A.Ts material, were competitions for amateurs until 1968. How would that factor in?
Wrong person and wrong time to indulge childish arguments. Besides referring to someone as a snob for having a different opinion marks you out as a.... well snob
Brilliant points and well made
You left off “What if Borg hadn’t retired at 26 and actually opted to play in the Aussie” ? He’d easily be the GOAT by some distance had he remained in the game for another 5-7 years and we’d all be talking about which of the current big three have the best chance of catching Borg’s immortal record of 25 slam wins.
I can respect your opinion on RF being the best. But because he played everything single-handed?Wrong person and wrong time to indulge childish arguments. Besides referring to someone as a snob for having a different opinion marks you out as a.... well snob
C'mon now.
You're acting like Maradona was just an eye pleasing footballer who didn't bring stats or trophies to the table.
It's obvious why people would use Grand Slams as the top gauge when comparing players, it's regarded ass the biggest tournaments in Tennis, nobody is going to put Euro's, Copa America, Asian Cup, ACON or Confed cup above a World cup!
You do realise people actually do bring up Masters 1000s, year end finals and world number 1 lengths as arguments to why a certain player is world number 1? It's used for people saying Djokovic and Nadal are greater than Federer.
It's very likely Djokovic will end his career with the most GS, master 1000s, only person to win all 9 master titles, longest reign as world number 1 and the most year end final wins or at least equal. So why shouldn't he be regarded as the GOAT?
That's why I said 'especially' between those three as they played around the same era. Two played in the hardest era in tennis arguably. But you're correct there's no set mechanism to compare different eras.
Last edited:
Borg never won a single US open, so who's to say he would have won an Australian Open?
GOAT is entirely subjective, it really depends on what you value. For me it's Federer, given his level of success as an attacking, fast court player in a defensive slow court game. Plus he has a one handed backhand, which is another dying art.
There's something poetic about him and Nadal finishing on 20 each, as they have one of the great rivalries in the sport.
Djokovic and his defense is impressive, but to me it's in the same way drawing a perfectly straight line is impressive, I'm bored watching it very quickly. He could win every GS for the next 10 years and I'll never have him at the top as he's just too robotic for my tastes.
There's something poetic about him and Nadal finishing on 20 each, as they have one of the great rivalries in the sport.
Djokovic and his defense is impressive, but to me it's in the same way drawing a perfectly straight line is impressive, I'm bored watching it very quickly. He could win every GS for the next 10 years and I'll never have him at the top as he's just too robotic for my tastes.
The Aussie was played on grass back then, which most with a basic knowledge of tennis history would know.
The US open was played on grass until 74, then three years of clay, you know the same surface Borg won all of his slams on? Basic knowledge aye?
Last edited:
I don't know a whole lot about tennis history apart from the obvious stuff. And I only watch the grand slams.
But, I much prefer to watch Federer play than Djokovic. Of course it's incredible to see how resilient and solid Djokovic can be, but Federer is much more enjoyable to watch. And I'm obviously not the only one who is like that. I think that aspect should play a big part in who the best ever is, rather than focusing solely on numbers. Who captures the imagine the most (whatever that even means)
But, I much prefer to watch Federer play than Djokovic. Of course it's incredible to see how resilient and solid Djokovic can be, but Federer is much more enjoyable to watch. And I'm obviously not the only one who is like that. I think that aspect should play a big part in who the best ever is, rather than focusing solely on numbers. Who captures the imagine the most (whatever that even means)
Exactly.
You're acting like Maradona was just an eye pleasing footballer who didn't bring stats or trophies to the table.
DId you even check Maradona stats? These are the trophies he won that standout:
1 World Cup, 2 leagues with Napoli, 1 UEFA cup with Napoli. That's it!
For the sake of objectivity, other potentially significant trophies include: 1 Argentine league, 1 cope del rey with Barca, 1 coppa italia with Napoli, 1 Youth WC with Argentina
As for the number of goals, it is 310. A number that wouldn't put him in the top 50 of all time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_footballers_with_500_or_more_goals
Surely, not the kind of stats that you'd expect from a top 50, best of all time player, not to mention a GOAT debate.
He's a midfielder though, so wouldn't be fair to use goals as a criterion. But that applies as well to WCs and GSs in Tennis as well. Like goals, they are what capture the headlines, but they are no objective way alone to assess GOATs material.
Art does matter, a lot, otherwise Maradona wouldn't be in the top 50 of all time!
True. But that's from a prestigious and media perspective, not from an objective and mathematically-based view. Counting GSs or WCs is simple arithemtic to assess a GOAT, and that is wrong.
My post was not intended against Nole. I didn't say that he shouldn't be GOAT in my original post. What i said is that GOAT debates are ridiculous.
Last edited:
Borg's best surface was grass and clay, so obviously playing more tournaments on his best surfaces during his peak years would've resulted in more silverware. He would've probably picked off a US Open at some point as well just as Fed and Nadal did on their weaker surfaces. So in the end, retiring at 26 with 11 slams could've easily resulted in double that number had he played into his mid 30s as the likes of McEnroe and Connors did.