D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Shokavish needs to win many more natural surfaces slams or else he'll only ever be known as an artificial champ.
Something I would like to see people realize: Slam wins should not be everything
- Thread starter mattosgrant
- Start date
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
Everything spot on , but Nole need 17 not 16 to match Fed unless he complete 2 cgs which is highly unlikely as he still has to win even one RG.
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
So according to your logic Rafa > Fed , as being clay specialist he is still behind by 3 slam to a person who is good to legendary on 3/4 slam surface and leads Fed in master department with only 3 clay master to 6 hardcourt masters.
Why are you creating categories which nobody talks about.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
There is no doubt in my mind that Rafa is equal to Fed if the tour was structured with HC and Clay swapped for each other.
The weeks at No 1, year end number 1 will all automatically follow.
Rafa has done all he has in spite of the skewed nature of the tour.
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
Good , I will see in future when you rate players or give players ranking , you put Rafa above Sampras and Fed
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
Agree with you , slam should always come first, but you can't discount tour finals, masters, years no. 1 , weeks no. 1 . Everything should count, some more like slams, some less but it should count.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Then the 5 slam finals he played with Nadal and Djokovic in 2006-2007 never happened.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Prime Federer reached the Wimb final, not loses in the QF.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
The same old "Federer never gets worse, it is always others who get better."
It is ok. Djokovic's victories over Fed in 2011 were fine and well deserved. No need to push things by saying that Fed was in his prime. Fed's prime ended the moment he lost in back to back GS QF which was in 2010.
Fed was losing his edge even before Djokovic improved. It has nothing to do with just Djokovic getting better.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
There's four Slams a year and success in them is rarely unattended by lesser success, and everything moves toward greater emphasis on the slams.
It's just easier to count Slams as well unless there's a tie or otherwise you've got complicated weighting schemes that don't really have widespread approval.
It's just easier to count Slams as well unless there's a tie or otherwise you've got complicated weighting schemes that don't really have widespread approval.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Of course he hasn't. Djokovic hasn't beaten prime Fed in a slam final either.Fed hasnt beaten Prime Djokovic in a slam final .. And i wont even mention Rafa
But yeah
Fed is Goat, Goat level of play , bla bla
xFedal
Legend
Slams are not everything Novak is on the verge of tying 2 of Feds feats this year of 6WTF and 5YE! ITF have him with 6 best player awards!
mattosgrant
Banned
This type of argument could be applied to many players. One could say when comparing Borg and Sampras "if the WTF were on clay instead Borg would have won 8 and Sampras 0". However you NEVER heard that argument when comparing Borg to Sampras, including from the many who argue Borg should rate above. Phantom what ifs about what if this event were on another court are really stretching things. Particularly when as I mentioned the WTF was never at any point in tennis history on clay.
5555
Hall of Fame
Borg said he retired because of burnout. Had he played at every AO from 1975, he would probably have retired earlier. Let's say he would have won AO in 1979 and 1980 and retired after FO in 1980.
Borg would have ended his with career with 11 slams.
abmk
Bionic Poster
one extra tournament a year would not have caused his career to be shortened by more than an year ..duh !
and I am not going to prove it, get it ?
InsideOut900
Legend
One thing that you forget,hardcourt being 60% of the season also means that most people are hardcourt specialists,making the contest hell more harder.
Just look around Federer,Murray,Tsonga,Del Potro,Berdych and many others peaked on HC. Who is Nadal to contest with? Coria for like 2 times in 2005 and no other specialist. Good that Federer/Djokovic are all court players,but they cannot produce the same tennis as they do on HC,leaving Nadal to contest on clay only with himself. So 1 Major/year 100% and the chance to take other Majors vs. no guarrantee for Djokovic.
Rafa is not bigger than tennis. Get over it. Didn't compare Novak and Rafa. To me time spent at number 1 is pretty important. Titles won too. This is why I rate Lendl highly. I don't think about poor Rafa too much.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
The competitors you listed are irrelevant for Djokovic for weeks at no 1, YE no 1, etc.
Heck, they were not even consistent competition for Rafa .
Put any competition you can think of and offer 2 majors on clay every year.
Rafa will make a mockery of the tour
5555
Hall of Fame
That one tournament happens to be a Grand Slam. Get it?
Also for Emerson winning during split tour tines.
InsideOut900
Legend
Make clay the best surface for the rest of the tour and let Djokovic be the only HC specialist,heck I won't mind it.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Are you seriously suggesting that with 2 clay majors and 1 hard court major, with any kind of competition, Novak will have more majors than Rafa ? Even Novak would laugh at that theory.
The warrior does not have a 81-0 record for nothing.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Nah, InsideOut900's right. Just because there are more HC slams doesn't mean Djokovic should have won more overall than Nadal. Hard court competition >> clay court competition.
InsideOut900
Legend
Do you realize that you just stated Nadal's achivements within the conditions given by me?
Look at how insane Federer's peak on HC or grass is. Give him the proper game like a 2HBH and a clue on how to use the court and he might trouble Nadal just as much as he troubles Djokovic on HC.
And I am not suggesting that Djokovic will have more Slams up to this point. But he will have that 1 Slam on HC for let say 8 years+ 3/4 on grass. Make it 11 or 12,as all are clay specialists as I just supposed before. Not too much difference.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
How come then Novak have 0 RG with all that weak clay competition ?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I think we all know the answer to that one.
The Fedfather
Legend
Because Novak is a part of the said "weak clay competition".
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
But it is not Federer that Novak loses on HC.
You mean to say remove players of the caliber of Nishikori , Murray and Stan and just keep it at Berdych, Ferrer, Monfils level on HC ?
You want to construct some imaginary players to beat Rafa on clay ?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I wouldn't say no mate
MLRoy
Hall of Fame
It sounds to me you're contradicting yourself. At least in the Rafa/Roger rivalry. You're saying Rafa would need 2 more SLAM wins over Roger, despite their head-to-head (23-11). Seems you're using the NUMBER of slams wins as the bottom-line value. Well, if you're going to do that, head-to-head slam finals take on the most value in their rivalry, wouldn't you agree? 9 wins to 2 (or 81% vs 19%) is a HUGE difference. That has to compensate for something -- a slam or two?
As far as the year end championship, while the ATP may consider it the 5th slam, I don't know anyone else personally who does. I consider several other masters tourneys superior; the Canadian Open (or what ever it's called this year), and Monte Carlo to name two. The quality of the year-end matches, despite the small draw & round-robin format, isn't usually very high, imho. The players are a little burned-out, understandably. I think it's kind of a superfluous event. They have to enter the same tourney approx a dozen or more times a year, so they get plenty H2H competition from each other.
The problem with rankings is most people don't always know who's #1 at the year's end, or how many weeks at #1 each of the top players have in total. But they know who won Wimbledon. Don't forget about months away from tennis with injuries over a career, too. That can really sabotage a ranking. But other than that...
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, I get it . Now do you get that playing one extra Grand slam a year does not shorten a player's lifetime by a year and half . He'd have cut down on another tournament or couple of tournaments to make the necessary adjustment. Or is that beyond your comprehension ?
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic was playing prime level tennis in 07 if Fed was playing prime level tennis 2011. It's just that peak Nadal on clay/grass and peak Fed were in a completely different class to the likes of declined Fed/Nadal that Djoker was chowing down on in 2011.
2011 was stronger at the top than Fed's peak which is why it was a crazy impressive year from Novak but Fed's fields were deeper. Regardless if you think it was prime Fed and peak Nadal Djoker beat in 2011 you are seriously deluded. Djoker wins 1 slam that year with prime Fed and peak nadal around.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Nadal 2011 was prime not peak. It doesn't matter how good he was against the field, if you cannot play your best against the best you are not at your peak. Nadal was pretty poor in the Wimby and USO finals. Still 7 straight over prime Nadal is still crazy impressive but saying that 2011 was peak Nadal because he was amazing against the field is like saying 2013 Djokovic was actually as good as 2011, there was just a better Nadal to stop him because without Nadal he is 71-6 with 3 slams, WTF, and all 4 slam finals, better stats than 2011. Both are dumb things to say. Nadal and Djokovic were both pretty great in 2011 and 2013 respectively and those wins are impressive but saying they were at their bests because they were awesome against the field is idiotic. What matters most is how you play against the best in determining your peak...otherwise Fed and Murray would be at their peaks today.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I wouldn't say no mate
What if it meant Djokovic would never get the French? Would you say no then?
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Fed in the USO 08&09 semis > Fed in the 11 USO semis. Remind me what exactly happened in the 2011 USO semis against maybe the best match Djoker has ever played there despite the fact that Fed put up a -10 W/UFE total in that match (unheard for him at the USO) and served/returned poorly(winning like 66% of his first serve points and 17% of first serve return points, both really low numbers).
If you wanna argue this you are insane. 2008&2009 Fed vs 2011 Novak at the USO is a close 4 set win or 6-3 in the 5th kinda win like what almost happened in 2011 anyways.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
this...Fed for me was tied with Sampras after the 2008 USO, overtook him at the 09 FO. Fed was still behind Borg and Laver until the 09 FO. He was definitely not the GOAT after the 07 USO with 12 slams even though it seemed imminent he would beThat was publicly known even before the tournament started, so there were no "suddenly struck by Mono" excuses. And no, Federer wasn't considered the GOAT after USO 2007. Sure, your regular bandwagoners, and sensationalistic "experts" like Mcenroe, were calling him the greatest as early as USO 2004, but those are the same persons who claim Nadal has the best volleys on tour.
Federer was "officially" considered the GOAT after the FO 2009.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
and what if the tour was structured with grass and clay switched? Fed gas done all he has despite his best surface being the least represented on tour by far! What if there were 3 masters on grass? Fed would be racking up the ranking points and titles.
and not all HC are the same. slow, fast, indoor HC are very different conditions. If the tour has 50% HC distributed between slow, fast, and indoors/carpet then that is fine. The problem is that there are 2 fast HC left on tour, one of them is a 500, and indoor HC are all slow now. The tour is dominated essentially by slow and medium HC which is a problem.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Federer doesn't have only the Major count that works for him as the most distinguished player of the last 30 years.
It is the entirety of his career on top of his prominent separate successes in different categories.
Federer was also #1 bang in the middle of the so called strong era at the tender age of 31.
We are yet to see what will happen with the current crop of players, when the time comes.
It is the entirety of his career on top of his prominent separate successes in different categories.
Federer was also #1 bang in the middle of the so called strong era at the tender age of 31.
We are yet to see what will happen with the current crop of players, when the time comes.
InsideOut900
Legend
Aren't Cinci/Montreal/Shanghai played on the same Decoturf? Montreal seems slower,but Shanghai and Cinci are category 4 by eye test,I dunno for sure,the ball bounce is also very low in both.
The indoors should be perhaps a little faster,but Miami/IW slow,Montreal/Paris medium,Cinci/Shanghai medium-fast. Also AO seemed faster than usual in the last 2 years,with US Open slower.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
paris and WTF are slow as hell and have been since 2011.
Cincy is at a higher altitude so it plays faster. They are played on decoturf but I bet the court mix/balls make a difference. I think the USO series uses the same balls but I bet the USO surface is grittier than Cincy. Shanghai today isn't even as fast as the Shanghai TMC even though both apparently used the same decoturf so there must be some sand/change in balls. AO I don't see what everyone else sees, it still plays pretty slow at night but I am fine with the AO being slow...that's how it was always supposed to be. The problem is that Wimbledon is at best medium-fast and USO is medium.
There is only one court at the 5 biggest events in tennis that still plays fast and that is court 1 at Wmbledon...that is scary.
Dubai is the fastest court on tour but it is only a 500 imo.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
What do you mean by that? Grass until '87. Rebound Ace until '07. Those were both fast surfaces. Slow-down once switch made to Plexicushion in '08.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
That is a very fair argument and that is the reason why people hold Fed in high esteem because of domination on 2 surfaces. Same with Borg.
My point was mainly on the comparison of Rafa and Novak and people wanting to elevate Novak on the basis of WTF and weeks at No 1.
The WTF especially is losing all its relevance with very weak shows the last 2-3 years.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
well when AO was on grass it wasn't even regarded as highly as other slams/YEC. Rebound ace was definitely not fast lol...faster than Plexi I would say..still slow to medium-slow.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
agreed...WTF is basically just another AO today. Before it at least used to be a separate event as it was indoors(unlike the USO) and fast (unlike AO). Now, it is both indoors and slow, a lot like the AO (which is not indoors all the time but it is not subject to the elements that much). So that's definitely unfair to Nadal but Djokovic did win the old YEC while Nadal did not although to be fair Nadal ran into Fed two years in a row while Novak's 08 field was depleted by Fed's injury, Nadal/Roddick pulling out and even then it was far from a comfortable win.
Imo Novak must get to 13 and RG to surprass Nadal. Which I think he will. In my mind his peak play won't surprass Nadal's ever but you gotta give credit where credit is due.
Similar threads
- Poll
