Nope, he will always be the best of the three for me. The other two are workmanlike and prosaic.
Tennis 2022
- Thread starter saivet
- Start date
- Status
Nope, he will always be the best of the three for me. The other two are workmanlike and prosaic.
And better at tennis.
Nope. Just 5-6 years younger.
Pissed on him in his 20s too.
Who pissed on who?
I see @Andrade 's point in that the age difference put Federer at a constant disadvantage. Up until 2012, Federer had the winning record against Djokovic. I believe he was 31 years old when Djokovic managed to turn the head to head around.
The situation with Rafa was different. Nadal had the advantage from a young age, and Federer found more success in 2017.
In 2011 alone Djokovic beat Federer 4-1.
Head to head is a poor stat to go by in tennis. It's hard for me to say who was better, peak fed or peak djokovic but it hast o be Djokovic due to his sheer mental ability. It's akin to Ronaldo where nothing phases him and he goes into overdrive coming back from championship points.
Nadal is a distant third for me.
Sadly I see him making it eight next year
I can't see any other outcome than Djokovic overtaking Nadal in major titles. He would probably have won Australian Open had he played too.
This incredible mental ability that's allowed him to get slapped 3-0 in Slam Finals by .... FOUR different players and have some absurd weakness to Wawrinka in Slams specifically. This don't happen to true GOATs, they are only consistently weak to their fellow GOATs.
Djokovic a distant third.
If your point is that he's a mental giant, you wouldn't be comparing him to a man who just tucked his tail between his legs and decided to throw himself at every big club in Europe, because he can't handle the challenge at United. A more apt comparison would be the 7 time balón dor winner. But that's for another thread.
You say that head to head is not a good stat to go by, and then cite a head to head (Novak still trailed Federer after 2011). Moreover, I'm only responding to someone talking about head to head to begin with.
Try to follow.
Last edited:
This incredible mental ability that's allowed him to get slapped 3-0 in Slam Finals by .... FOUR different players and have some absurd weakness to Wawrinka in Slams specifically. This don't happen to true GOATs, they are only consistently weak to their fellow GOATs.
Djokovic a distant third.
I think that all of them have had their mental lapses. Federer had the 40-15 moments. Rafa had a bunch of finals that he lost while leading in the 5th set. Novak of course had the lapses when he lost to Stan in multiple finals as a favourite and then got straight settled by Medvedev last US open.
I don't think any of the three are comparable to a Jordan from a mental standpoint. And I agree with you in that I don't see Djokovic as a mental giant.
All 3 are mental giants, people forget just how slim the margins are in tennis at the top level, and how many factors are involved.
That's another way to think about it. It isn't easy to win slams and sometimes things are decided by millimetres. Having said that, Nadal missing the gimmie backhand at 4-2 in the 2012 AO final was criminal. Federer wasting multiple chances to close 2019 Wimbledon on his own serve was disappointing.
I don't know whether it's too harsh to suggest they could have played those important points better.
Yes, all true. But even with Fed v Nadal, Nadal was ahead in the early stages because they played a lot of times on clay and Nadal is basically unbeatable on clay. On other surfaces it was more even.
With Djoker it's as you say, Fed was initially well ahead and then Novak caught up as Federer got older.
there’s always going to be a lot of debate about who was the best. there is a simple
litmus test though. nadal v henman - 2-0 nadal. novak v henman - 1-0 novak. fed v henman. 7-6 federer.
nadal is clearly the best. though federer was unlucky to have played in the same era as henman. who knows how many he might have won had he been a few years younger.
litmus test though. nadal v henman - 2-0 nadal. novak v henman - 1-0 novak. fed v henman. 7-6 federer.
nadal is clearly the best. though federer was unlucky to have played in the same era as henman. who knows how many he might have won had he been a few years younger.
It's an interesting case because Nadal has the overall head to head due to the clay skew, but Federer leads on grass and hard court.
I think you're initial point was that Federer was competing against younger all time greats and that he was at a disadvantage (if I understood you correctly). I suppose that could be the argument to make in Federer's favor if we're talking about the tennis GOAT discussion.
With Novak Vs Rafa, it's a simpler one. But even then, the slam distribution might lead some people to go with Novak even though he has one less than Rafa.
I'm not sure who the greatest is, and I personally don't think anyone stands over the rest, but I can see the argument for all of them, including Roger.
I beat Henman. True story it was at the Cheltenham Open 1987 I think was the year. Result would be in the Telegraph but I've never been able to get access to the microfilm.
His Dad also videoed every one of his matches so that's out there somewhere unless he understandably recorded over it.
by my calculations that puts you squarely in third on the all time list.
You are a fine person.
The joyless insanity of only viewing/enjoying a sport in terms of whether your fave won or not.
Fun match. Same Nick lost but Novak did his thing. As always.
Fun match. Same Nick lost but Novak did his thing. As always.
This may happen but it doesn't mean he is the best. It's a bit of a simpleton's measure to look at the number of GS wins and say that the one with the most is the greatest. There's so many other factors to consider.
The first time I remember this being used as the determining metric is when Sampras broke the record. Who did he pass? Roy Emerson. No one said Emerson was the GOAT before Sampras broke his record. But once he did, Sampras was the GOAT? How does that make sense?
Serena has more slams than Graf, is she definitely better? I love Serena but I'm not about to say she's definitely better than Graf because she has one more slam or whatever it is. It's a debate.
Even for players in the same era, there's too many variables. Is Jimmy Connors better than John McEnroe because he has one more slam? How about Ivan Lendl? He has one more than Mac as well but I'd wager that people remember John much more fondly.
yip, now says “xnxx step mom nuru massage”
They're all at the same level and it's just which one you prefer.
It's an internet thing, it wasn't heavily talked about with such absurdity even with Sampras... because well, Borg had 11 in like 5 years while skipping the AO completely and borderline coasting at the US at times and still making the final. Connors also had the game to do well at the RG but was banned and also skipped the AO except for 2 times where he won and was runner up.... it's quite hard to claim Sampras was better than either outside of a simply bigger number.
You can't overly make the same debate for the big 3, because they more or less play together and don't skip anything - at their peaks at least.
Nadal and Djokovic tailored their game to a style that beats Federer's style. They take less risks and are more solid (I know this is selling them massively short, but you know what I mean). I think him being first and the man to beat works against him in the big 3 era. On the other hand, before Nadal and Djokovic he really had no match on tour.
I really miss Federer being good though, both Nadal and Djokovic are dull to watch with the endless ball bouncing, ocd ritual human wall stuff.
Fun factor and talent aside though, Id say Djokovic is the best all round player.
I really miss Federer being good though, both Nadal and Djokovic are dull to watch with the endless ball bouncing, ocd ritual human wall stuff.
Fun factor and talent aside though, Id say Djokovic is the best all round player.
Last edited:
The funniest part about this is Federer fans were the most vocal lot about the number of slams being the most definitive metric all that time when it looked Federer was gonna be well ahead of the others. All those years of smugness have now ended up with a massive egg on face and them having to change their tune. They shot their own foot.
Great points here, appreciated.
Pretty much. Injuries/luck/level of competition are playing a huge role in who ends up with the most slams.
Did he also use Pete Townsend's "It's for a book I'm writing. Honest, guv." excuse?
I personally could always see that the other two were likely to catch up because they are quite a bit younger and Fed couldn't keep pushing the record up forever. I was amazed when he won his last one, when he was 37 I think.
To be fair, at one point, Federer basically had everything in his favour but the inevitable Slam number, so it was merely the icing... the dude was the GOAT by the time he was at about 7 slams, he just needed the number to confirm it.... then Nadal also started winning on other surfaces.... and then Novak just become a peaker peak Federer. But you don't get the other 2 without Federer, so he'll always have being the game changer in his favour. The dude made the Aussie and French Opens far more relevant than they were.... like I remember him losing to Safin(a classic!) being a big deal.... no one particularly cared when Sampras lost at the Aussie, or well, just about anyone at the French... yet it was news all of a sudden... now all 4 slams get major coverage.
All three are a credit to their sport. Murray was too and it’s a real shame he got injured when he could have cashed in some more majors. You only have to look at the men’s game outside of Nadal/Djokovic now to see how lucky and incredible that era was.
Nice post. Last couple of sentences needed more mixed metaphors, though.
They all could easily have played important points better, it's harsh to question someone's mental fortitude for such small margins, which could be due to a lapse of concentration, or fatigue, or a number of things that aren't mental.
You aren't responding to my post really because I am talking about the argument Fed fans themselves made over many years. What is now a 'simpleton's;' argument was pretty much what Fed fans shouted about for years, so honestly it doesn't really matter what your personal pov on that journey is, it won't change the above. So they pretty much deserve getting the same 'simpleton' argument smashed back at their face at every instance and make them deal with it. You throw trash, trash comes back at you.
No calm. This is war. Make. them. pay.Dude, you need to calm down
- Status