Has taken Fed to the woodshed twice, taken Murray countless times, taken Nadal last year.
While Andre has an argument as well, Andre's last two AO titles came vs. HORRIBLE fields in 2001-2003
Has taken Fed to the woodshed twice, taken Murray countless times, taken Nadal last year.
Has taken Fed to the woodshed twice, taken Murray countless times, taken Nadal last year.
While Andre has an argument as well, Andre's last two AO titles came vs. HORRIBLE fields in 2001-2003
Andre beat Pete at his peak in 95 Aussie.....that alone makes him better than Nole who had to face slow fake tennis.
He has the same number of titles as Federer, but Federer - due in part mostly to his greater age and therefore longer career - has more consistency. Djokovic has four titles and his next best result is two quarterfinals. Federer's been in, what, like 10 straight semifinals? Along with a runner-up. I'm sure Djokovic will overtake Federer and Agassi by winning a fifth title, but at the moment, I don't think there's a clear choice between the three.
Sure, you can still make an argument for any of the 3.
However, Novak won 3 in a row which for me personally puts him at #1 regarding AO.
So is Federer the best at Wimbledon and the US Open since he won almost all of his titles in succession?
Sure, you can still make an argument for any of the 3.
However, Novak won 3 in a row which for me personally puts him at #1 regarding AO.
Sure, Fed winning both 5 Wimbledons and 5 USOs in a row is one of the most impressive feats in his career for me, It's very hard to dominate a slam year after year.
I agree that's phenomenal.
On the other hand, people like NadalAgassi will make this argument for why Federer is not the best Australian Open player but then use the opposite argument to prove why Sampras, for example, is better than Federer at the U.S. Open. "Only ****s" indeed.
Sure, you can still make an argument for any of the 3.
However, Novak won 3 in a row which for me personally puts him at #1 regarding AO.
At the moment he is tied with fed and Andre and you can take your pick based on what additional criteria you value - more finals vs 3 consecutive slams etc etc . However I expect him to win 1 more at least and then he will be the clear leader. For now he is a cogoat.
Didn't Pete tear his rotator cuff in 2000 in Australia though? Pete was in pretty good control of the match in 2000.
Didn't Federer play only one time in his prime against Djokovic at AO? In 2007 and he won in straight sets. Yep.
Nole wasn't in his prime in 2007 though.. What was he 18 or 19? ROFLMAO
Nole wasn't in his prime in 2007 though.. What was he 18 or 19? ROFLMAO
He was also the #15 seed. Djokovic only started to join the real upper echelon that summer. Anyway Djokovics prime is looking to be 2011-2015 or 2016 (with his peak years being 2011 and one or two years not yet known), so Federer was right in his prime and Djokovic a good 4 years from the start of his, and several months before even being a top 10 player for the first time at the time of that match. Even the 2008 Australian Open was Federer only barely past his **** designated prime, and Djokovic 3 years from the start of his, and Djokovic spanked him good (of course the mono excuse, yada yada).
Didn't Pete tear his rotator cuff in 2000 in Australia though? Pete was in pretty good control of the match in 2000.
I certainly think so. Not to mention Fed has the superior winning % on those two slams.If we value consecutive wins very high to put Nole at the top in AO then Federer is at the top in USO and Wimbledon.
And stop jumping to conclusions, Djokovic's prime will probably be 2007-2014 just like every other player in history has an 8-year prime period like Federer in 2003-2010, Nadal in 2005-2012, Sampras in 1993-2000 etc.
He was also the #15 seed. Djokovic only started to join the real upper echelon that summer. Anyway Djokovics prime is looking to be 2011-2015 or 2016 (with his peak years being 2011 and one or two years not yet known), so Federer was right in his prime and Djokovic a good 4 years from the start of his, and several months before even being a top 10 player for the first time at the time of that match. Even the 2008 Australian Open was Federer only barely past his **** designated prime, and Djokovic 3 years from the start of his, and Djokovic spanked him good (of course the mono excuse, yada yada).
Federer destroyed Novak...and would have done the same to today's Novak.
Prime Federer couldnt even destroy young Novak, in their first ever meeting that Novak was a top 3 player, at the 2007 U.S Open on a much faster hard court; and in fact Djokovic should have won the first 2 sets, blowing tons of set points. Yet you think prime Federer would destroy a much much better Djokovic on a much slower hard court, LOL!
Past his prime Fed, beat God mode Djoker on clay, much slower than any hard court.
Prime Federer couldnt even destroy young Novak, in their first ever meeting that Novak was a top 3 player, at the 2007 U.S Open on a much faster hard court; and in fact Djokovic should have won the first 2 sets, blowing tons of set points. Yet you think prime Federer would destroy a much much better Djokovic on a much slower hard court, LOL!
Past his prime Fed, beat God mode Djoker on clay, much slower than any hard court.
And Federer proceeded to practically own Djokovic at the US Open making him look like a total clown until Djokovic stepped his game up and Federer's game dropped abit. Either way, there's no doubt you could not favor Djokovic against Federer on a HC with both at their best; at best you could make the argument it is an even match-up.
If Federer had beaten Safin in the 2005 SF, he'd have won 4 in a row.
Let's see Djokovic against in-form Safin. Wait, we've seen that before...and it wasn't pretty from Djokovic's end.
Just saying.
I'll agree that accomplishment-wise, Djokovic is probably going to be the greatest ever at the Australian Open. Who knows how it would've played out if they stayed on rebound ace, though.