joekapa
Legend
All of the players you mention above are not even in the top-30 list of great players, apart from Nadal.
He bet "peak" Nadal ? hahahahahahahahaha......his mother was still reading him bed time stories back them.
It puts into perspective what fedal have done
- Thread starter K-H
- Start date
All of the players you mention above are not even in the top-30 list of great players, apart from Nadal.
He bet "peak" Nadal ? hahahahahahahahaha......his mother was still reading him bed time stories back them.
Nadal on clay and slow hards sure.
On fast hards and grass Federer all day long. Neither player would touch Fed on these surfaces.
joekapa
Legend
Weak era 2014-2016, strong era 05-07.
Baby Nadal and baby Djokovic were number 2 and 3 in the world in 2007.
Yeah, strong era......hahahahahahahahaha
What the hell are you on about you clown? Nadal peak from a very young age... was winning HC masters from 05... RG winner from 05.... Wimbledon finalist from 06.
Federer > Djokovic.
302 > 200 or whatever
237> whatever Djokovic consecutive weeks were
17>12
7>3
5>2
88>60 whatever
Fed > GOAT
Last edited:
05-07 stronger than 14-16 absolutely. 14-16 is the weakest era in tennis history.
Neither were babies pathetic troll.
Please stop posting.
joekapa
Legend
Djokovic has beaten him 3 times at the USOand he did it with one return in 2. Federer crumbled like a brittle piece of Swiss chocolate.
He has also beaten him TWICE at Wimby. End of story.
Federer's only legitimate slams were against Murray.
Go and beat Berdych, and leave the tough players for Djokovic and nadal.
joekapa
Legend
How old were Nadal and Djokovic in 2007 ? Djokovic was 19/20 and Nadal was 20/21. Sure they were wise old men by that stage.
It's 3-3 at the USO. 1 win coming vs Grampa Fed, 2 coming vs choking post prime Fed.
Wait, are you one of these idiots who thinks Fed wasn't prime til 2015? LOL.
Djokovic should count his lucky stars he wasn't born in 1981. Otherwise he'd be a 4-5 slam chump with ZERO Wimbledon/USO titles and a losing 30-10 H2H vs federer.
Djokovic was a 2 x GS SF 1 x F and masters winner with a few titles, Nadal was a 3 x GS winner, 2 x Wimbledon finalist, multiple masters wins including on hard courts.
Neither were "babies" clown.
K-H
Hall of Fame
Who assumed he won't win more? I didn't. I said for all he's done (which is a a whole lot) he still hasn't reached Fedal slam count. He might win more, he might not, that's irrelevant to what I'm saying. Im saying Djokovic has been playing out of this world for the last few years. Even if his career stopped today he'd still be considered an ATG. but after all he's done and achieved, he still hasn't caught up to Fedal which shows how well they've done. That's all I'm saying. I'm not even saying Fedal are better than Djokovic, that's based on opinions and there's no clear one sided opinion on that.
If I would like to prove that Federer is GOAT, I would certainly avoid any discussions about eras and would never use word "weak era" as this is one of the strongest arguments against Federer. Rocky Marciano has the best numbers ever, but he is rarely considered to be the boxing GOAT.
joekapa
Legend
Why no mention of Sampras ?
Unbelievable stuff from Fed fans (I don't say Nadal fans, because I am one).
They USE Nadal to legitimise Federer's career, as he is supposedly his main rival (which he is not).
But if you are counting slams (even ones against a crippled Phillipousis, legless Hewitt, and Bagdhatis), you fail to mention Sampras. Doesn't he also have 7 Wimby's, back when grass was actually grass ?
The truth always comes out in the end. You can bet on it.
That's actually the strongest argument against Djokovic.
No one discusses that when calling Fed GOAT. It's more to do with the fact that he has more grand slams, joint most W/USO... 5 straight W/USO, 302 weeks at number 1, most consecutive weeks at number 1, best all court player ever with one of the best graceful class styles of all time.
The only arguments Djokodal fans have is weak era (which can be thrown straight back at Djokovic) or "H2H" which is quite irrelevant unless it directly meant that Nadal had more GS than Fed (which he doesn't, and as the above troll said, he's not part of fed's era as he's 5 years younger)
The only relevance Nadal has is he stopped Fed from having 24 slams instead of 17. However he still has 3 less and overall less dominance so Fed remains the GOAT.
Sampras is also up there as one of the best players ever and I doubt you'll find many federer fans saying otherwise.
joekapa
Legend
So Federer is the GOAT in this imagenary world you are in, where 19 y.o Nadal was at his peak, and crippled Hewitt, Phillipousis and a lucky Bagdhatis were part of a "strong era".
joekapa
Legend
1) Sampras is the king of grass and greatest server ever. he would trample Federer H2H, prime to prime, using the same strings and raquets.
2)Baby Nadal, and later Djokovic came along and showed exactly what Federer is. A great player, but not against great players. Especially Nadal, he destroyed Federer, and at such a young age.
Nadal was at his clay peak from 05-09 yes. Try watching him play...
HC prime from 05 as he won multiple masters titles. Grass prime from 06 once he reached Wimbledon finals.
Hewitt wasn't crippled from 04-05 when fed beat him... Bagdhatis played about as well as Murray did in most of his AO finals and Phiipoussiss played no worse than 2015 Grampa Fed did at the Wimbledon final.
Fed is GOAT in the factual real world where he has the most grand slams, most dominance most weeks at number 1 and consecutive weeks, joint most Wimbledon / USO, 5 straight W/USO, 88 title etc.
Djokovic has a long way to go before he can challenge those numbers. And based on his recent showings he won't get anywhere near that. Nadal is finished as a multi slam winner too so GOAT's records are safe for years.
The only delusional fantasy world is the one you're living in.
1. Wrong. LOL. Fed would destroy Sampras on clay and slow-medium hards. Fast grass i'd edge it to Pete but based on their only meeting there would be no trampling you pathetic troll. Fast hards 60/40 to Fed thanks to better ground game.
2. Wrong again. Federer and Nadal peak for peak weren't split evenly across the surfaces (5-1 to Fed outside of clay, 6-1 on clay)
3. Wrong again! Federer owns Djokovic on grass, medium - fast hard, and edges him on clay. Slow hards Djokovic would have a slight edge.
You're living in a delusional fantasy world that isn't real. Fed is the GOAT. Look at the numbers!
joekapa
Legend
We all want to perceive reality our own way. Hewitt was finished by the time 2003 came around. Phillipousis had kne injuries that would bring down an elephant, and basically relied on his serve (which goes to show you the quality of his rivals). Bagdhatis, who was young back then, reached the AO final in a monumental effort (which once again goes to show you the standard of players back then).
And you instisting that that Nadal was at his prime in 05, is simply enough to get you instituted.
I have had enough.
joekapa
Legend
Federer has been beaten by Djokovic at the USO semis TWICE, and USO final once. He has beaten Fed in 2 Wimby finals, when Fed was playing as well as he has ever been.
And if Federer was as good a fast courter you say he is, he should of been able to put him away seen as he is so "skilled". But he didn't.
Who could remember the SABR (which is basically a chip and charge) debacle. These circus tricks might be good against Berdych, but are laughable against Djokovic and Nadal.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I understand where you're coming from.
However it applies to all fan bases. I'm tired of the same bias that gets spilled around here that Nadal and Djokovic always had it harder, that their slams were won through the hardest way etc etc, when in fact that's not true at all. On average they did have it harder, but not to the extent some fanboys like to believe. They have such a one dimensional view of only looking at the names instead of the form that they can't see things objectively. They immediately look at Nadal for example and see that he defeated Djokovic and immediately assume that Djokovic performed to his status, when in fact in some cases it wasn't true at all. Yet that victory is overhyped just because he beat Djokovic even if the Serb was sub par that day. They act like beating even a subpar Djokovic is 100 times tougher than beating a Hewitt or a Roddick playing at their best and delivering a great performance.
Ii is what it is. No fan base is the most objective and most people have a one dimensional view of looking at the name instead of the form.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
But there are people considering Fed the GOAT, even great players like Borg and Becker for example. Even Djokovic said the same thing about Federer.
SinjinCooper
Hall of Fame
In their primes: Fed - 16 slams. Nadal - 14 slams. Djokovic - 12 slams.
Around 30: Fed - 1 more slam and countless deep runs. Nadal - early round out. Djokovic - early round out against low-ranked nobodies.
Mid 30's: Fed - Semis and Finals every time he plays a slam. Nadal - will be a 250 lb bald guy on the beach in Ibiza. Djokovic - will have so thoroughly completed his transition to an extra for The Walking Dead that he will be unrecognizable as a human.
Around 30: Fed - 1 more slam and countless deep runs. Nadal - early round out. Djokovic - early round out against low-ranked nobodies.
Mid 30's: Fed - Semis and Finals every time he plays a slam. Nadal - will be a 250 lb bald guy on the beach in Ibiza. Djokovic - will have so thoroughly completed his transition to an extra for The Walking Dead that he will be unrecognizable as a human.
joekapa
Legend
Becker has also said that he played in a weak era. So has Macenroe. So has Stich. So have a number of others.
But that's not to PC right now.
joekapa
Legend
No, no, no......you cannot getaway that easy. In their primes Fed was being convincingly beaten by Nadal/Djoko. End of story. I couldn't care what he won agaist Philipousis and Bagdhatis.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
But they did say Fed was the best didn't they? Becker said it last year, Mac said recently too. Even Agassi said it. Djokovic too. Also Borg.
I guess it's up to your personal agenda which opinion you believe.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Rubbish. When did Nole beat prime Fed convincingly? Fed was 4-1 in majors.
And Nadal needed 5 sets to beat Fed at Wimb and AO. Convincingly LOL.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
In his prime Djokovic was beaten convincingly by Murray, Wawrinka and Nishikori. Fed at 34 easily straight setted the first 2 in GS semifinals.
Hewitt was done by 06. In 05 he was still reaching major finals and SF.
Nadal in 05 won 11 titles. 1 GS. Multiple hard court masters. Reached number 2 rank. But this isn't prime? Maybe you need to be institutionalised not me...
Again you go off names.. but Bagdhatis played better in that 06 final than say Murray did in the 2015/2016 finals where he folded easily. Gonzalez GOATed Nadal off the court a year later too.
This whole weak era argument is just your opinion and subjective. the numbers and experts agree Federer is the GOAT.
The only time Nadal convincingly owned prime Fed was the 08 French open final. Everywhere else was either 4 or 5 sets.
Djokovic never owned prime Fed as they were 4-1 in majors during 07-09. Anything after was post prime Fed and anything after 2012 is declined grampa Fed.
All when Fed was past his best. It's irrelevant. Fed already was the GOAT by then.
Playing as well as ever? What the hell... 03-09 Fed would destroy weak, shanking 14-15 Wimbledon Fed, as well as any version of Djokovic there. You must have started watching tennis in 2011. Zero chance you saw Fed during his prime.
2010/2011 Fed was well past his best, but he still outplayed peak djokovic in 2011 on the slower courts (they were faster around 04-06 and tend to fluctuate in speed). Fed did own djokovic 3 times at the USO you seem to forget...
SABR was a good tactic to use occasionally and to good effect, helping him win some cheap points on the way to winning Cincinatti. Debacle? I'd rather watch exciting shots like that than boring robotic baseline pushers like Murrovic...
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Federer won the same number of slams as Djokovic between 2008-2012. Heck, it's very possible that Fed might have performed slightly better during 2008-2012 than Djokovic.
In really strong years like 2008,2009, 2011, 2012 Nadal won 5 majors to Federer's 4. To say Nadal did much better than Fed in a tougher era is not entirely true. How did a weak era champion win only 1 less slam than Nadal in these stronger years?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fed held a 6-5 H2H lead in majors and a 16-13 H2H lead overall until the end of 2012. He defeated Djokovic more times in majors in 2011-2012 than the mighty Nadal and had exactly the same number of wins in these 2 years as the mighty Nadal, but yeah, Fed is a weak era chmapion who doesn't know how to handle great players
Something do with 07-10 Djokovic ( GS champion , multiple GS finalist and SF, multiple masters winner, multiple wins over Nadal and Federer ) being a "baby" who's mother still reads him bed time stories. Or something equally ridiculous.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
Some had a tougher breakthrough while some had a tougher time to remain on top, in the end it's pretty much the same for them three overall.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I might start a heated debate with this one, but here it goes anyway. Let's put Federer aside for a second because he's GOAT.
Yes, Nadal has more slams than Djokovic, but Djokovic leads basically every other important metric outside of that when compared to Nadal. In other words, I don't think Nadal having 14 slams automatically places him above Djokovic when everything is considered. So in some ways, you could've made the same OP in 2015-2016 and just changed the names to Federer and Djokovic, or "Fedovic" after Nadal lost in an early round. All you'd have to talk about to make it credible is Djokovic's consistency advantage over Nadal or his ability to win 5 WTF's and be #1 for much longer with more YE #1's to his name.
Yes, Nadal has more slams than Djokovic, but Djokovic leads basically every other important metric outside of that when compared to Nadal. In other words, I don't think Nadal having 14 slams automatically places him above Djokovic when everything is considered. So in some ways, you could've made the same OP in 2015-2016 and just changed the names to Federer and Djokovic, or "Fedovic" after Nadal lost in an early round. All you'd have to talk about to make it credible is Djokovic's consistency advantage over Nadal or his ability to win 5 WTF's and be #1 for much longer with more YE #1's to his name.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
I might start a heated debate with this one, but here it goes anyway. Let's put Federer aside for a second because he's GOAT.
...
Stopped reading here.
No.
I think there's already a very good argument for placing Djokovic ahead of Nadal. I guess I have them more or less equal right now.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
This is what I like about some Nadal fans: they want to convince us he's above Fed despite having less slams, by telling us that the slam count doesn't tell the true story. But when compared to Djokovic, they say that Nadal has more slams, despite Nole leading him everywhere else.I might start a heated debate with this one, but here it goes anyway. Let's put Federer aside for a second because he's GOAT.
Yes, Nadal has more slams than Djokovic, but Djokovic leads basically every other important metric outside of that when compared to Nadal. In other words, I don't think Nadal having 14 slams automatically places him above Djokovic when everything is considered. So in some ways, you could've made the same OP in 2015-2016 and just changed the names to Federer and Djokovic, or "Fedovic" after Nadal lost in an early round. All you'd have to talk about to make it credible is Djokovic's consistency advantage over Nadal or his ability to win 5 WTF's and be #1 for much longer with more YE #1's to his name.
They basically want to have their cake and eat it too.
K-H
Hall of Fame
You're right. Sampras should've been mentioned. It completely slipped my mind. We're always debating about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and that's why I didn't think about Sampras. Plus 'fedalpras' doesn't quite have the ring to it.
Djokodal Fan
Hall of Fame
2016 RG = Djoker is the second coming of god
2017AO = Djoker is over acheiver.
Funny posters
2017AO = Djoker is over acheiver.
Funny posters
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I may have jumped the gun a bit after Novak won RG because I did place him above Nadal after he won that tournament with no real clue what was coming next. That said, I still place him over Nadal (or at least equal, same as you) because everybody declines. I think Djokovic has many things in his favour when compared to Nadal. The aforementioned things in the previous post, relating to a more dominating prime in general with better overall season W/L records and two 3 slam seasons. There is also an argument that he's better at 3/4 slams.
joekapa
Legend
Bull dust.
This is what I like about some Nadal fans: they want to convince us he's above Fed despite having less slams, by telling us that the slam count doesn't tell the true story. But when compared to Djokovic, they say that Nadal has more slams, despite Nole leading him everywhere else.
They basically want to have their cake and eat it too.
Because nadal and Djoker are of the same generation. It's quite simple really. Federer never had a main rival. The real rivalry has always been Djokovic and Nadal. Federer and his fans have clung to Nadal so as to give his career some credence.
I am a fan of Djokovic, but appreciate Nadal a hell of a lot, because I consider them the two best players ever. Who is better of the 2, for me, depends on the day. All I know is that they are probably the only 2 players I would bet my house on against anybody else.
I will put it to you this way. I wouldn't know who I woulld put my money on if Nadal and Djokovic play eachother (injury etc permitting). If they played anybody else, then my money would always be on them. Simple.
And I'm sure any wise Nadal or Djokovic fan, who have appreciated their rivalry as the best ever, would say the same thing.
Last edited:
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
Can we be done with the outmoded "Fedal" tag? Garbage threads like this just go to prove that Nadal does not belong in the same category as Fed no matter how much his lame duck proponents try to force their agenda.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
The main thing for me was that I made the assumption that he would confirm the YE#1. We know now that he did not, and so for the moment I have them about equal. If I had to guess, after RG you probably made the same assumption.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
So you'd bet your house on Djokovic, who has lost important slam matches to Murray, Wawrinka and Nishikori? I suggest you find another place to live then.
joekapa
Legend
I would bet my house on Djokovic and Nadal against any other player EVER (maybe not Borg). Simple.
joekapa
Legend
The Fedal tag was invented by Federer fans, no Nadal fans. They needed a rival, but got much more than they bargained for....and then along came Djoker, and made it even more interesting.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Except Wawrinka against whom Djokovic is 0-2 in slam finals.
joekapa
Legend
Nope......would still bet against Stan the Man. Not consistent enough.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes I did make that assumption.
Similar threads
