Nadal faced the very best of Federer at Wimbledon than Djokovic ever did

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

You’ll never persuade me Novak is the goat. He didn’t dominate Federer at his best and he didn’t even do what Rafa did.

I respect him as a great champion, but I don’t think he’s plays the best tennis I’ve ever seen. For me it’s Fedal.

And I’m sure I’ll also never persuade you.

Federer never dominated djokovic at his best either.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Novak didn’t dominate Federer until 2014 and later at the slams.

Fed took out Peakovic at RG in 11 and WB in 12 and had match points at the USO in 10 and 11 after beating him in 7,8,9.

That’s not domination.

At the slams Federer pretty much dominated everyone but Nadal on clay from 2005-2009.

Novak simply couldn’t give him trouble like Nadal did - who was about the same age as Novak.

Djokovic has no glaring weaknesses in his game bar maybe overhead. Whereas Fedal have more weakness in the BH. Therefore, I disagree Fedal play the higher level tennis.

 

[Unseeded Player]

I’m not making a goat argument here for Fed.

I’m responding to folks asserting an unassailable argument for Novak as goat.

Rafa showed that someone from Novak’s generation could battle Federer at Federer’s peak for the biggest titles again and again - and win.

Novak couldn’t do that.

Novak wasn't in his prime until 2011... Than why didn't Nadal dominated so much after 2011?

 

[Razer]

You’ll never persuade me Novak is the goat. He didn’t dominate Federer at his best and he didn’t even do what Rafa did.

I respect him as a great champion, but I don’t think he’s plays the best tennis I’ve ever seen. For me it’s Fedal.

And I’m sure I’ll also never persuade you.

Sure, but I was only telling you that Peak for Peak is a dangerous slope which Nadal wins over everyone.

If all ATGs of history are born together then Nadal is assured double digits slams thanks to clay .... nobody else is assured of double digits despite having 3 more slams to cover up the lost ground, Novak isnt letting anyone win AOs and Pete will be very hard to beat at W & his home turf USA, even if Roger manages to beat Pete on a few occasions he still wins little bit..... nowhere close to Nadal's maginificent 12-14 french opens, nobody is stopping him.not borg, not novak, nobody....

So using your own logic, Nadal is the GOAT and not Federer ..... So it is best we respect numbers .... hypothetically the bull wins, hardly anyone realizes how significant Nadal's 14 frenchs opens are, he is seen as a 1 trick pony but in real he is the only pony who is assured of crossing the finish line more times than others.

 

[Federev]

Peak for Peak that means hypothetically ?

Sure, Nadal has the best hypothetical argument over both Federer and Djokovic, even though I don't indulge in IFs and BUTs I must warn Fed Fans that if Peak for Peak is done, then Rafa emerges the GOAT, not your boy Federer.

Nadal is the only guy who is assured 14 slams on his resume in any era.... that means if all the ATGs of all eras are born together then Nadal still takes 14 french opens while Nole takes a lot of AOs, Federer is busy battling Pete for the Ws and USOs and I think Pete will take most of those slams, he was a savage on Grass and in his backyard USA, so by your own logic Roger is no GOAT.

Luckily we don't see any peak for peak in real life, in real life we only see numbers and the winner is the greatest ..... Period!


In Sports "beauty" is irrelevant. If 2 boxers are boxing or 2 armwrestlers are wrestling then we wanna see who wins, not the one who is the most stylish.

I have been watching Tennis before Roger won his 1st slam and unlike you I was a Fed fan in 2000s for his dominance (remem you once mentioned that you found 90s boring because Pete made it a bore, then you found 2000s bore because Federer made it a bore, in 2010s you started to support Federer more since you like old men battling young men, isn't it? You said this.... ) .... So unlike you I was a hardcore Fed fan for his dominance and I did not care for Pete in those days before the record itself, but then 2023 is not same as 2009, the greatness of Roger was established on numbers itself. When he lost to Nadal then we were still curious to see when he would win his 7th wimbledon, the win vs Roddick in 09 was still his 6th but we saw that he reached 15 and honestly we did not give a f**k for Pete because for me Pete was always an old man from the day I started following Tennis, so no connect with him as such in those times. But today over the years that followed I have seen Novak break record by record, he also made Fed choke on some occasions, so in my mind I see a worthy challenger emerge, so when this guy emerges ahead in records then I give him the consensus..... It is plain an simple.....


Even Novak faced Fed from 2006 untill 2009 and he was losing, sameway Fed faced Novak from 2014 onwards till 2020 and he was losing, so they have all faced each other when 1 was pre peak/post peak and other was at his peak.

2010-2012 is a overlap of peak vs peak or prime vs prime

Novak won their matches at USO2010, AO2011, USO2011, FO2012 while Federer won FO2011 and W2012

So that is 4-2 prime vs prime for Fedovic .....



The Tide shifted in 2022, this will only get much worse for Federer

Goodness Razer you have a good memory about my posts!

Yeah - it was. Sampras on grass that killed it for me. 2 shot points and Sampras’ game didn’t look interesting. And his clay resume speaks for itself in terms of his well-roundedness at the highest of levels. He’s far from the big 3 in that regard to me.

With Fed it just looked - we’ll what everyone says - aesthetic. But he also dominated crazy so yeah. Didn’t get back in till 2012.

Cheers.

Wish we could talk all this over a beer in a pub.

 

[Federev]

Novak wasn't in his prime until 2011... Than why didn't Nadal dominated so much after 2011?

Good question. - Kind of my point too.

For me there are too many other factors to say one guys is the unassailable goat.

That’s me.

Novak has the records and I can appreciate when someone says he’s the goat.

But if they push it too intensely as if there is no possible argument otherwise - as if it was Jordan vs. Larry Bird - then I’m not on board.

 

[Federev]

Sure, but I was only telling you that Peak for Peak is a dangerous slope which Nadal wins over everyone.

If all ATGs of history are born together then Nadal is assured double digits slams thanks to clay .... nobody else is assured of double digits despite having 3 more slams to cover up the lost ground, Novak isnt letting anyone win AOs and Pete will be very hard to beat at W & his home turf USA, even if Roger manages to beat Pete on a few occasions he still wins little bit..... nowhere close to Nadal's maginificent 12-14 french opens, nobody is stopping him.not borg, not novak, nobody....

So using your own logic, Nadal is the GOAT and not Federer ..... So it is best we respect numbers .... hypothetically the bull wins, hardly anyone realizes how significant Nadal's 14 frenchs opens are, he is seen as a 1 trick pony but in real he is the only pony who is assured of crossing the finish line more times than others.

I think Rafa has a very strong argument for goat, peal for peak.

I can see that.

 

[SonnyT]

You’ll never persuade me Novak is the goat. He didn’t dominate Federer at his best and he didn’t even do what Rafa did.

I respect him as a great champion, but I don’t think he’s plays the best tennis I’ve ever seen. For me it’s Fedal.

And I’m sure I’ll also never persuade you.

But Federer never beat Djokovic when he was #1! Federer was 0-3 at W, 0-1 at AO and USO.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

He did.. But whos to say 2011 Djoker or 2014-2015 Djoker couldn't beat 2006-2007 Fed in 5?

 

[Unseeded Player]

Good question. - Kind of my point too.

For me there are too many other factors to say one guys is the unassailable goat.

That’s me.

Novak has the records and I can appreciate when someone says he’s the goat.

But if they push it too intensely as if there is no possible argument otherwise - as if it was Jordan vs. Larry Bird - then I’m not on board.

There is only 1 factor against Nadal since 2011 - Novak : )

But the age argument is invalid if the player is still above everyone else on the tour...

 

[Federev]

But Federer never beat Djokovic when he was #1! Federer was 0-3 at W, 0-1 at AO and USO

Well…

He beat Novak at WB in 2012. Novak was #1 and defending champ.

He beat Novak at RG in 2011, he was just a few weeks from #1.

But your point is kind of mine. These guys never dominated the other in their respective best years.

 

[Federev]

There is only 1 factor against Nadal since 2011 - Novak : )

But the age argument is invalid if the player is still above everyone else on the tour...

I don’t think it’s invalid if they are all 3 in a class by themselves, far above the rest.

64 slams since 2003 says that’s the case.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Barry Bonds and Floyd Mayweather and Bill Russell probably wish you were right.

I like Russel just like the next guy but where does he have the stats to make him GOAT.

 

[Unseeded Player]

I don’t think it’s invalid if they are all 3 in a class by themselves, far above the rest.

64 slams since 2003 says that’s the case.

It is if Fed was competitive for the title until age of 38... As I wrote he lost only 1 set in 2014 and 2015 until final, 2017 he won with 0 sets lost and in 2019 he lost only 3 sets until final with having with 2 match balls in the final... So people can say that Novak took advsntage of the age but Federer still played flawlesly on grass, numbers show that..

 

[Federev]

I like Russel just like the next guy but where does he have the stats to make him GOAT.

10 rings over Jordan’s six

And I’m not saying he’s the goat. That’s my point.

 

[Federev]

It is if Fed was competitive for the title until age of 38... As I wrote he lost only 1 set in 2014 and 2015 until final, 2017 he won with 0 sets lost and in 2019 he lost only 3 sets until final with having with 2 match balls in the final... So people can say that Novak took advsntage of the age but Federer still played flawlesly on grass, numbers show that..

He played flawlessly without Novak tho. We don’t know what would have happened if Novak didn’t have the problems he did.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

10 rings over Jordan’s six

And I’m not saying he’s the goat. That’s my point.

He has 11 not ten. You said that Russel wished that it would be about stats because then he would be allegedly GOAT as he has the best stats. Titles in team sports don’t tell the whole story though. There are a lot of bench warmers in the 2009-2015 Barcelona teams who have more titles than Zidane. Fact is: Russel does not have the best individual stats in NBA history not even close. You can nevertheless argue for him as GOAT but for other reasons.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

More qualifiers .

People have been using the word goat to describe Jordan playing a team sport long before Novak won his first slam.

If you ask people who the goat of boxing is - most are probably going to say Ali - then maybe Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano. The average person is not going to say “what weight class”.

If we’re going to talk qualifiers - the truth is Novak never dominated Federer in Fed’s prime.

Beat a mid 30s Fed at SW19? Rafa was pushing him starting in 2006. Took Novak till 2014 to get a win over an almost 33 year old Fed six years his senior.

If anything - peak for peak - Rafa has a better claim to GOAThood than Novak.

A lot will say Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Not the same... In tennis once you reach the top you are supposed to be pushed by younger rivals with ATG potential. This has happened to Federer since 2005 with nadal plus Djokovic since 2011.
Djokovic barely had this type of competition in his career, only now with Alcaraz and Rune.

You made this rule to suit your own analysis. I just reject your first sentence. No point reading ahead.

 

[nolefam_2024]

“Destroy Fed’s aura”

No offense, but this is essentially garbage trash talk.

I can’t tell if it’s wishful thinking or fear response over compensating.

You can say all you want about Novak being goat and destroying Federer’s aura.

It won’t change anyone’s mind.

These threads alone prove it.

Do you think the general public - which views him - on average - less favorably than you is going to be swayed by stuff like this?

People still watch Sampras and Magic Johnson and Joe Montanan clips even tho their stats are passed.

Simple fact is numbers don’t mean everything to folks. Barry Bonds obliterated the HR record. But he’s a hard to like guy and can’t hold a candle to Babe Ruth or Reggie Jackson or Hank Aaron in terms of “aura” or goat level legend.

Say it a billion more times. It won’t change anything. It will just get likes from his fans here.

Djokovic is erasing Federer from record books. You fedfans have to just look back around 2017 how proud you were to where you are now. It's not even that long back.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Djokovic is erasing Federer from record books. You fedfans have to just look back around 2017 how proud you were to where you are now. It's not even that long back.

Only WB has left... And thanks to 2020 covid fairytale it is still holding up but on glassy legs..

 

[nolefam_2024]

Only WB has left... And thanks to 2020 covid fairytale it is still holding up but on glassy legs..

Yes Wimby will be very hard to break. But that would be the best to break fedfans ego forever. They used to make fun of both Nadal and Djokovic saying Wimby is the real slam etc. Guess what Novak is right there now.

 

[Razer]

What will be the slam count if everyone of all time is born together ? @BorgTheGOAT @Kralingen @TripleATeam @jl809 @Holmes @NonP

I think this is how it could look like, sorry if this post is heavily laced with post 1990 recency bias, no idea how to rate guys of 70s and 80s.

01. Aus Opens - I think Novak takes 7 AOs minimum, 1-2 to Agassi, maybe 1-2 for Roger, maybe 1/0 for Safin, maybve 0/1 for Rafa .... 0 to Pete, 0 to everyone else as well

02. French Open - I think Nadal takes 11-12 French Opens, 2-3 to Borg, 1-2 for Lendl/Novak combined ? ...

03. Wimbledon - 6-7 for Sampras, 3-4 for Federer, 2 for Becker (at age 17 & 18), 1-2 for Novak, 1 or 0 for Nadal, 1 or 0 for Borg, maybe 1 for Mcenroe's 84 form

04. US open - 5 for Sampras, 3-4 for Federer, 1 for Agassi, 1 for Nadal, maybe 1-2 for Lendl/Connors/Mcenroe, 0 for Djokovic


Total Slam Count over a period of 15-16 years

Nadal - 12-13 Slams (almost all of them on french)
Sampras - 11-12 Slams (all of them at W & USO)
Djokovic - 8-10 Slams (most of them at AOs)
Federer - 8-10 Slams (wins at AO+W+USO but not enough times to emerge ahead or Rafa/Pete)
Borg - 4 Slams (Unfortunately he won't beat Nadal and I doubt outside clay he can beat the Peter/Roger/Novak trio to get wins)
Mcenroe - 2 Slams
Becker - 2 Slams (Greatest Teenage wimbledon winner ever, assured wins ! )
Lendl - 1-2 Slams
Agassi - 1-2 Slams (Both on HCs)
Connors - 1-2 Slams
Safin - 1 Slam

Murray, Wilander, Edberg, Vilas, Courier all 0, at least Sir Andy can be happy that better players than him are on same count as him.

Bull overpowers Borg IMO, plus you might ask how Pete wins so many slams at W & USO despite Fed, Novak and others present, I think he will, the man with the best serve, best running forehand, the best volleys and with top level athleticism + clutch will be invincible in these conditions, not to mention with some extra years of Great Age Shift these numbers are quite possible, so if we do peak for peak then the case of either of Federer/Novak doesn't look good as the slams are divided and it favors the Bull, thats why we should never compare eras and we should respect numbers within an era IMO.


Your views on this ? I've tried to be as unbiased as possible.

 

[Federev]

Djokovic is erasing Federer from record books. You fedfans have to just look back around 2017 how proud you were to where you are now. It's not even that long back.

It doesn’t matter to me if he gets 50 slams.

He can’t erase Fed’s game or his best years and what they showed.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Yes Wimby will be very hard to break. But that would be the best to break fedfans ego forever. They used to make fun of both Nadal and Djokovic saying Wimby is the real slam etc. Guess what Novak is right there now.

There is no grass specialist, tbh last 2 were easy walk for Novak, Shapovalov in 2021 and Kyrgios in 2022 put some tougher match but it wasn't nearly enough to win...Even if Novak reach 9, vulturing argument will go high as the sky...

 

[nolefam_2024]

There is no grass specialist, tbh last 2 were easy walk for Novak, Shapovalov in 2021 and Kyrgios in 2022 put some tougher match but it wasn't nearly enough to win...Even if Novak reach 9, vulturing argument will go high as the sky...

I don't think winning even 1 more is given let alone 2. Let's see. I hope he at least equals Federer but let's not promise 2 more we can guarantee.

 

[Unseeded Player]

It doesn’t matter to me if he gets 50 slams.

He can’t erase Fed’s game or his best years and what they showed.

Outside clay Roddick was the strongest challenge but depsite being remarcable the fact remains that before Nadal entered his prime there was no serious competition.

 

[Federev]

Outside clay Roddick was the strongest challenge but depsite being remarcable the fact remains that before Nadal entered his prime there was no serious competition.

No offense, but do you honestly think you’re going to convince me?

I know I’m not going to convince you.

Your probably writing for others right?

 

[Unseeded Player]

No offense, but do you honestly think you’re going to convince me?

I know I’m not going to convince you.

Your probably writing for others right?

You can believe whatever you want, that is your right...But ignoring the fact doesn't erase it's existent..

 

[MichaelNadal]

Wim 06 final fed > Wim 07 final fed > Wim 08 final fed > Wim 12 semi fed > Wim 14 final > Wim 15 final fed > Wim 19 semi fed > Wim 19 final fed

Slaybmk

 

[Federev]

It doesn’t matter to me if he gets 50 slams.

He can’t erase Fed’s game or his best years and what they showed.

To many of Fed’s detractors - all of Fed’s opponents were just weak era mugs.

Slam winners, multi world #1s… but because Fed dominated, them they much be mugs.

Not sure that’s a fact.

 

[Third Serve]

Yes Wimby will be very hard to break. But that would be the best to break fedfans ego forever. They used to make fun of both Nadal and Djokovic saying Wimby is the real slam etc. Guess what Novak is right there now.

Speaking of egos, that’s a pretty big one you’ve accumulated for yourselves.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Speaking of egos, that’s a pretty big one you’ve accumulated for yourselves.

Not sure how it's ego when I think Novak and Roger are equal.

 

[jl809]

What will be the slam count if everyone of all time is born together ? @BorgTheGOAT @Kralingen @TripleATeam @jl809 @Holmes @NonP

I think this is how it could look like, sorry if this post is heavily laced with post 1990 recency bias, no idea how to rate guys of 70s and 80s.

01. Aus Opens - I think Novak takes 7 AOs minimum, 1-2 to Agassi, maybe 1-2 for Roger, maybe 1/0 for Safin, maybve 0/1 for Rafa .... 0 to Pete, 0 to everyone else as well

02. French Open - I think Nadal takes 11-12 French Opens, 2-3 to Borg, 1-2 for Lendl/Novak combined ? ...

03. Wimbledon - 6-7 for Sampras, 3-4 for Federer, 2 for Becker (at age 17 & 18), 1-2 for Novak, 1 or 0 for Nadal, 1 or 0 for Borg, maybe 1 for Mcenroe's 84 form

04. US open - 5 for Sampras, 3-4 for Federer, 1 for Agassi, 1 for Nadal, maybe 1-2 for Lendl/Connors/Mcenroe, 0 for Djokovic


Total Slam Count over a period of 15-16 years

Nadal - 12-13 Slams (almost all of them on french)
Sampras - 11-12 Slams (all of them at W & USO)
Djokovic - 8-10 Slams (most of them at AOs)
Federer - 8-10 Slams (wins at AO+W+USO but not enough times to emerge ahead or Rafa/Pete)
Borg - 4 Slams (Unfortunately he won't beat Nadal and I doubt outside clay he can beat the Peter/Roger/Novak trio to get wins)
Mcenroe - 2 Slams
Becker - 2 Slams (Greatest Teenage wimbledon winner ever, assured wins ! )
Lendl - 1-2 Slams
Agassi - 1-2 Slams (Both on HCs)
Connors - 1-2 Slams
Safin - 1 Slam

Murray, Wilander, Edberg, Vilas, Courier all 0, at least Sir Andy can be happy that better players than him are on same count as him.

Bull overpowers Borg IMO, plus you might ask how Pete wins so many slams at W & USO despite Fed, Novak and others present, I think he will, the man with the best serve, best running forehand, the best volleys and with top level athleticism + clutch will be invincible in these conditions, not to mention with some extra years of Great Age Shift these numbers are quite possible, so if we do peak for peak then the case of either of Federer/Novak doesn't look good as the slams are divided and it favors the Bull, thats why we should never compare eras and we should respect numbers within an era IMO.


Your views on this ? I've tried to be as unbiased as possible.

Nice. It's hard to put Borg in there too because the tech was so, so different, so I would be inclined to leave him out. I might do this systematically at some point but imo for Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Sampras and Agassi, Nadal is the guy who ends up with the most slams - in fact he ends up with 15 french opens, because instead of facing 2021 Nadal, 2021 Djokovic would have to face 2020 Nadal who was an absolute monster. I have Nadal winning 2 Wimbledons because of how early he peaked on grass and a couple of HC slams too. So 19 or 20.

 

[Razer]

Nice. It's hard to put Borg in there too because the tech was so, so different, so I would be inclined to leave him out. I might do this systematically at some point but imo for Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Sampras and Agassi, Nadal is the guy who ends up with the most slams - in fact he ends up with 15 french opens, because instead of facing 2021 Nadal, 2021 Djokovic would have to face 2020 Nadal who was an absolute monster. I have Nadal winning 2 Wimbledons because of how early he peaked on grass and a couple of HC slams too. So 19 or 20.

If you remove all the players who won their first slam before 1980 then it is possible, I think HC slams Nadal won't win, this is because he peaked late on HCs, even Murray reached a HC final before Nadal reached his first and the HC goats are all quite ruthless on HCs from age 21-22 onwards, 1 wimbledon is possible but not 2, Becker won wimbledon at 21, Federer was still 21, Pete was also 21 during his first wimbledon, so all that adds up to 15 frenchs + 1W in your scenario. He still ends up with most slams for sure due to the frenchs. So it will be a question of whether we should accept 16 slams as the GOAT or maybe someone like Pete who wins 11-12 fast court slams or someone like Fed/Novak who are on 8-10 level numbers but more versatile on more surfaces which has more competition. Thats why IFs and BUTs don't make sense, the only way to know who is what is to accept the realtime numbers. Fed fans refuse to accept numbers, so they lose in hypotheticals too like this.

 

[NoleFam]

I’m not making a goat argument here for Fed.

I’m responding to folks asserting an unassailable argument for Novak as goat.

Rafa showed that someone from Novak’s generation could battle Federer at Federer’s peak for the biggest titles again and again - and win.

Novak couldn’t do that.

I don't see why you think this is meaningful though. Nadal was challenging Federer because he matured not only earlier than Djokovic but Federer as well. If we're being technical, Federer matured last of the 3. Nadal won his 1st Slam right after he turned 19 and had an amazing season, and Federer didn't win a Slam until he was a month shy of 22. That's 3 years difference. Djokovic was 20 and 8 months when he won his 1st. So if the roles were reversed, Federer would be challenging an ATG even less than Djokovic was in 2005-2009 when he was 17-22, because Federer was losing to all kinds of players during those ages.

 

[Federev]

I don't see why you think this is meaningful though. Nadal was challenging Federer because he matured not only earlier than Djokovic but Federer as well. If we're being technical, Federer matured last of the 3. Nadal won his 1st Slam right after he turned 19 and had an amazing season, and Federer didn't win a Slam until he was a month shy of 22. That's 3 years difference. Djokovic was 20 and 8 months when he won his 1st. So if the roles were reversed, Federer would be challenging an ATG even less than Djokovic was in 2005-2009 when he was 17-22, because Federer was losing to all kinds of players during those ages.

I may be missing your point - not sure I understand.

But you do know that Novak didn’t win another slam for three years after his first?

How many slams did Fed win in the 3 years after his first?

And Federer was losing to all kinds of players in his peak? You mean during the time he was number one longer without interruption than anyone in history including Novak to this day?

I would put Fed’s best years up against any player’s. Would love to see Federer and Novak’s peaks aligned. Post prime Fed was quite competitive with peak years Novak at RG and USO in ‘11 and Wimbledon in ‘12. I would expect peak Federer hold his own very well.

 

[NoleFam]

I may be missing your point - not sure I understand.

But you do know that Novak didn’t win another slam for three years after his first?

How many slams did Fed win in the 3 years after his first?

And Federer was losing to all kinds of players in his peak? You mean during the time he was number one longer without interruption than anyone in history including Novak to this day?

I would put Fed’s best years up against any player’s. Would love to see Federer and Novak’s peaks aligned. Post prime Fed was quite competitive with peak years Novak at RG and USO in ‘11 and Wimbledon in ‘12. I would expect peak Federer hold his own very well.

When Federer was the age Djokovic was in 2005-2009, ages 17-22, what was he winning? Was he challenging the top guys for Slams? That's what I'm talking about. So from your point you seem to be kind of penalizing Djokovic because he wasn't reeling off Slams during those years but Federer was doing even less than Djokovic was at that age. So how is that meaningful or some kind negative for Djokovic?

The equivalence of Djokovic's 2005-2009 is Federer's 1999-2003. Federer made one Slam SF during that time and that's when he won a Slam in 2003. Djokovic won a Slam, another Slam final and made 5 Slams SFs, and was actually challenging the ATGs although he was losing the majority of the matches. So if Federer can't even do this well, how is this a negative for Djokovic?

 

[Federev]

When Federer was the age Djokovic was in 2005-2009, ages 17-22, what was he winning? Was he challenging the top guys for Slams? That's what I'm talking about. So from your point you seem to be kind of penalizing Djokovic because he wasn't reeling off Slams during those years but Federer was doing even less than Djokovic was at that age. So how is that meaningful or some kind negative for Djokovic?

The equivalence of Djokovic's 2005-2009 is Federer's 1999-2003. Federer made one Slam SF during that time and that's when he won a Slam in 2003. Djokovic won a Slam, another Slam final and made 5 Slams SFs, and was actually challenging the ATGs although he was losing the majority of the matches. So if Federer can't even do this well, how is this a negative for Djokovic?

I never said it’s a positive for Federer.

It’s a positive for Nadal as opposed to Djokovic.

(Though I do think 2011-2012 lend evidence that peak Federer would be very well vs peak Novak, we’ll never know for sure.)

Why wasn’t Novak able to do what Rafa was able to do? Challenge Fed at his peak?

My main point is that unassailable goat arguments aren’t there. Peak years vs peak years, old age, development age - these things factor in.

I’ll get like 3 of the same guys arguing w me again for writing this, but I’ve already repsonded ad nasuem.

No one changes anyone’s mind. You guys think Novak is the goat because he has the slam record. I don’t because I don’t see his best tennis as better than Fedal’s best tennis.

I’m not going to be convinced and neither are you guys.

Heck - some people still think Sampras is the goat even though he couldn’t even win a SF at RG.

So maybe I’ll give it a rest on this thread at least.

 

[Razer]

I never said it’s a positive for Federer.

It’s a positive for Nadal as opposed to Djokovic.

(Though I do think 2011-2012 lend evidence that peak Federer would be very well vs peak Novak, we’ll never know for sure.)

Why wasn’t Novak able to do what Rafa was able to do? Challenge Fed at his peak?

My main point is that unassailable goat arguments aren’t there. Peak years vs peak years, old age, development age - these things factor in.

I’ll get like 3 of the same guys arguing w me again for writing this, but I’ve already repsonded ad nasuem.

No one changes anyone’s mind. You guys think Novak is the goat because he has the slam record. I don’t because I don’t see his best tennis as better than Fedal’s best tennis.

I’m not going to be convinced and neither are you guys.

Heck - some people still think Sampras is the goat even though he couldn’t even win a SF at RG.

So maybe I’ll give it a rest on this thread at least.

Did it benefit Rafa from challenging Fed at his peak ?

He is still behind Novak in most metrics, what does that tell us ?

 

[Federev]

Did it benefit Rafa from challenging Fed at his peak ?

He is still behind Novak in most metrics, what does that tell us ?

It tells us that he did a better job battling Federer at his very best than Novak did.

I’m a peak for peak guy. For me the goat would be the guy who’s clearly better than the others at their best, not when one guys is in his mid 20s is beating another guy is in his teens, or a guy in his mid 20s is beating another guy in his 30s.

This is why Rafa being so good against peak Fed in 2006-2007 and why post prime Federer’s competitiveness against peak Novak in 2011-2012 is more intriguing to me than Novak’s latter year’s Wimbledon wins against Fed, for instance.

You’re a strict numbers guy. Not as much my thing.

But by now you know all this from what I’ve already written.

 

[Razer]

It tells us that he did a better job battling Federer at his very best than Novak did.

I’m a peak for peak guy. For me the goat would be the guy who’s clearly better than the others at their best, not when one guys is in his mid 20s is beating another guy is in his teens, or a guy in his mid 20s is beating another guy in his 30s.

This is why Rafa being so good against peak Fed in 2006-2007 and why post prime Federer’s competitiveness against peak Novak in 2011-2012 is more intriguing to me than Novak’s latter year’s Wimbledon wins against Fed, for instance.

You’re a strict numbers guy. Not as much my thing.

But by now you know all this from what I’ve already written.

So he battled Federer and yet ended up losing to Novak ? He had an 8 slams lead (end of 2010) over a Novak who is of his same age and yet he is on 22=22 ... ? ... Looks like he should not have battled Federer ? Isn't it ? Or did it benefit him from winning slams early ? Make you pick

 

[Federev]

So he battled Federer and yet ended up losing to Novak ? He had an 8 slams lead (end of 2010) over a Novak who is of his same age and yet he is on 22=22 ... ? ... Looks like he should not have battled Federer ? Isn't it ? Or did it benefit him from winning slams early ? Make you pick

Yeah - maybe the mileage was too intense for him? Maybe he peaked earlier and started to fizzle earlier.

His grass game was pretty caput after 2010. But he’s done better at the USO and RG than Novak.

Of course that’s moving outside the peak for peak analysis.

But I still think it’s possible Rafa and Fed played a higher level of tennis than Novak did at their best. I don’t see their battles at the slams from 2006-2009 as of less quality than what Novak has brought.

So my pick is this:

“My main point is that unassailable goat arguments aren’t there. Peak years vs peak years, old age, development age - these things factor in.

No one changes anyone’s mind. You guys think Novak is the goat because he has the slam record. I don’t because I don’t see his best tennis as better than Fedal’s best tennis.

I’m not going to be convinced and neither are you guys.”

That’s my pick, if I can put it that way.

 

[Razer]

Yeah - maybe the mileage was too intense for him? Maybe he peaked earlier and started to fizzle earlier.

His grass game was pretty caput after 2010. But he’s done better at the USO and RG than Novak.

Of course that’s moving outside the peak for peak analysis.

But I still think it’s possible Rafa and Fed played a higher level of tennis than Novak did at their best. I don’t see their battles at the slams from 2006-2009 as of less quality than what Novak has brought.

So my pick is this:

“My main point is that unassailable goat arguments aren’t there. Peak years vs peak years, old age, development age - these things factor in.

No one changes anyone’s mind. You guys think Novak is the goat because he has the slam record. I don’t because I don’t see his best tennis as better than Fedal’s best tennis.

I’m not going to be convinced and neither are you guys.”

That’s my pick, if I can put it that way.

He has been winning clay slams from 2005 till 2022, so definitely his body has lasted the intensity, it is his game which was not good enough outside clay. Nadal challenging Federer in 2000s actually gave him a huge lead over guys of his age like Murray and Novak. He should never have lost this lead, the fact that his lead was cut down to 0 shows how someone better than him arrived and he could do nothing about it.

Not it is not possible that Rafa and Fed played at a higher level, both of those fellows were 1-11 to Novak between 2011AO-2012AO period, that settled it, they were just not good enough. That period showed a glimpse of the future, someone better than them had arrived.... that same guy broke all records.....

Reg Fed, it is Nadal who punctured any claims of Fed's goathood in late 2000s, it is Fed's bad luck that Nadal arrived early. It did not benefit Nadal in 2010s because someone better cut down his early lead but for Fed it was bad news that Nadal arrived. We used to hate Nadal in late 2000s for he merely existing on this earth, so imagine how much damage he did to Fed's cause. So thank God that Novak himself was not at his peak then, imagine how bad it would be for Fed if both of his young rivals peaked as teens ?

 

[NoleFam]

I never said it’s a positive for Federer.

It’s a positive for Nadal as opposed to Djokovic.

What wasn’t he able to do what Rafa was able to do? Challenge Fed at his peak?

My main point is that unassailable goat arguments aren’t there. Peak years vs peak years, old age, development age - these things factor in.

I’ll get like 3 of the same guys arguing w me again for writing this, but I’ve already repsonded ad nasuem.

No one changes anyone’s mind. You guys think Novak is the goat because he has the slam record. I don’t because I don’t see his best tennis as better than Fedal’s best tennis.

I’m not going to be convinced and neither are you guys.

So maybe I’ll give it a rest on this thread at least.

I explained why in the last post—Nadal matured faster than Djokovic. He won his 1st Slam at 19 and began dominating RG right away, but he didn't have his 1st multi Slam year until 3 years later when he was 22. Djokovic won his 1st at 20 but didn't win his next one until 3 years later, like Sampras, when he was 23. ATGs don't have the same trajectory so it's the accomplishments at the end of their careers, especially when comparing the ones from the same era, that matter. I don't really think it's up to anyone to change your mind because you believe what you feel, but accomplishments in sport just can't be denied. Fedal had the same chances as Djokovic and whether their best tennis is better is subjective. Djokovic's accomplishments and his 44-23 record against them in the last 12 years is not.

 

[Federev]

…Novak himself was not at his peak then, imagine if both of his young rivals peaked as teens ?

I know.

Could you imagine him having to face Novak during his peak years - like at say - USO and RG in ‘11 and at Wimbledon in ‘12?

How would Federer ever survive even at his peak?

I’m sure Novak would destroy him.

 

[Razer]

I know.

Could you imagine him having to face Novak during his peak years A like at say RG ‘11 and at Wimbledon in ‘12?

How would Federer ever survive even at his peak?

I’m sure Novak would destroy him.

What fluke RG are you talking about? The next year Fed was straight setted in 2012 by Novak itself, the peak version of Novak at RG is 2013, Fed himself did not beat Peak Novak at RG and that 1 loss in between some 40+ streak was just a bad day in office. You are reading too much into that nonsense RG11, end of the day Novak is superior to Federer on Clay .... 6 rome opens vs 0 .... 2 frenchs vs 1 fluke french won due to soderling ....

Wimbledon is the only place when Fed wont be affected but his Aus opens vanish with Novak peaking early.

 

[Federev]

I explained why in the last post—Nadal matured faster than Djokovic. He won his 1st Slam at 19 and began dominating RG right away, but he didn't have his 1st multi Slam year until 3 years later when he was 22. Djokovic won his 1st at 20 but didn't win his next one until 3 years later, like Sampras, when he was 23. ATGs don't have the same trajectory so it's the accomplishments at the end of their careers, especially when comparing the ones from the same era, that matter. I don't really think it's up to anyone to change your mind because you believe what you feel, but accomplishments in sport just can't be denied. Fedal had the same chances as Djokovic and whether their best tennis is better is subjective. Djokovic's accomplishments and his 44-23 record against them in the last 12 years is not.

Nope. I disagree. Age and peak stage relative to others matters. Novak’s H2H against Fed is clealry informed by their ages and the fact that Fed played most of his career at a significant age disadvantage to Novak. You can chart it.

But you already know my arguments.

I’m going to try to be done with this back and forth for tonight.

Enjoy your records!

 

[joshuayuan]

 

[Razer]

To be honest I am glad that Novak exists @Federev

Otherwise throughout the 2000s and until 2017 Federer has only given me misery as a fan whenever I watched his matches vs Nadal. It was so annoying to see the spaniard win that I cannot describe it. Anytime you watch Fed play Nadal and it was 1 sided, I have a lot of bad memories of watching Fedal matches with friends in group and always Fed losing.......

So when Novak peaked we were all pleasantly shocked. Thats one of the big reasons why I like Novak emerging ahead of both Fedal .... He deserves it .... He put them down and took the records like a real man .... I dont care if Fed was declined/slow/whatever, all that is irrelevant