fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
Certain fanbases are now looking to discredit Federer because they thought their fav was going to easily catch Federer.
It was impossible to catch Federer with the weak-era lead he built up.Certain fanbases are now looking to discredit Federer because they thought their fav was going to easily catch Federer.
It was impossible to catch Federer with the weak-era lead he built up.
Great post. Hope you don't mind me saying, my view is Djokovic out of the three is mentally the most suspect in the biggest occasions which has cost him now not being GOAT. At his best he has no weakness at all. Nadal and Federer do have weaknesses more obvious to attack. No disrespect to Wawrinka but Djokovic should never be losing to wawrinka at a major final.
Game has missed him this year.
Peak for peak and prime for prime; Nadal is the best, Federer the greatest, and Djokovic the most complete.
Nadal being the best is like that of a beast; when physically tuned he is least likely to ever lose. the effort required to defeat him is monumental.
Federer as the greatest is the result of mastery and acumen on a level that can make effort seem rather unnecessary.
and Djokovic's completeness is a result of technical excellence that results in superlative simplicity.
That doesn’t have to be a hypothetical debate. Peak for peak djoker nadal clashed and nadal lost 7-0. The very best physically peaked version of nadal could not beat djoker on clay, hard, grass, fast, slow, low bounce, high bounce
Nadal hasn’t beaten djoker at AO but djoker has beaten nadal AO, FO, WIMB, US, WTF, all masters
So clearly it’s more difficult for nadal to beat djoker than other way round and in many tournaments he simply hasn’t and can’t beat djoker which isn’t the case for djoker anywhere
Nadal has also lost too many big matches e.g WIMB 07, AO 2012, 17 many big ones 2011 and countless records taken by rivals e.g his clay streak or his masters sets or WTF finals
But only the most biased, swivel-eyed, Fedal looney-tune would argue that he isn't the best player of the 3.
The facts, and the evidence of your own eyes-and lived experience- don't lie.
Federer and Nadal. Two of the all-time greats. No doubt about it. But why are their fans so unwilling to believe the evidence of, not only the stats, but their own eyes and own lived experience.
FEDERER -his longevity is incredible. He is a beautiful and graceful tennis player. No one could argue otherwise. But it is beyond question that he took advantage of a very weak era in tennis to hoover up major after major. Look at the facts about his opponents up to 2008.
When Nadal and Djokovic reached maturity he stopped winning slams with such regularity. He continued to win the odd one, sure, but in the big slam meetings with Nadal and Djokovic he was regularly defeated. He is 3-9 to Nadal in slam meetings and 6-9 to Djokovic (2-8 in their last ten meetings!) 9 wins in 27 slam matches against your biggest rivals? Are these really the stats of the greatest player of all time? When you have such a miserable record in slams against not one, but TWO of your biggest rivals? When you only start winning again when Djokovic is injured?
I mean, take off the Fed-shaped specs and look at the facts objectively. There is much of the modern day Emerson about him. He hoovered up titles when the opposition was weak. That is why total slams can only ever be part of the measure. To deny it is to place Emerson above Laver.
His inability to win the Grand Slam also is a definite black mark against his claims to GOAT-ness. One slam on clay simply doesn't cut it.
NADAL -a brilliant competitor. The heart of a lion. A will to never give up, the likes of which we've not seen since the glory days of Jimbo. And he moved the game forward with his demolitions of the previous best player in the world, Federer. But the facts don't lie. His skills failed to translate fully to anything other than clay courts. Sure, at his uninjured peak he matched or defeated Federer on most surfaces other than indoor hard, but when Djokovic sorted out his head and his stamina, Nadal had no answer. He was left playing catch-up as Djokovic started to defeat him on surface after surface, culminating in the beat-down in Paris.
He has done incredibly well to come back from injury, but he is a shadow of the player he was. Like Federer, he has taken advantage of the most depleted field in tennis history to nab two majors, but does anyone really think that it is as a result of Nadal raising his game to new heights? He suffered at the Australian Open by being given one day less rest than Federer (all fair fans know if the situation was reversed then Nadal would have been holding the trophy), but a fully fit Djokovic would have dispatched them both. And his performances against Federer since have been ample evidence of a player in terminal decline.
Which leaves us with DJOKOVIC -sure, the guy has issues. His game is not the most beautiful to watch. But only the most biased, swivel-eyed, Fedal looney-tune would argue that he isn't the best player of the 3.
The facts, and the evidence of your own eyes-and lived experience- don't lie.
Federer and Nadal. Two of the all-time greats. No doubt about it. But why are their fans so unwilling to believe the evidence of, not only the stats, but their own eyes and own lived experience.
FEDERER -his longevity is incredible. He is a beautiful and graceful tennis player. No one could argue otherwise. But it is beyond question that he took advantage of a very weak era in tennis to hoover up major after major. Look at the facts about his opponents up to 2008.
When Nadal and Djokovic reached maturity he stopped winning slams with such regularity. He continued to win the odd one, sure, but in the big slam meetings with Nadal and Djokovic he was regularly defeated. He is 3-9 to Nadal in slam meetings and 6-9 to Djokovic (2-8 in their last ten meetings!) 9 wins in 27 slam matches against your biggest rivals? Are these really the stats of the greatest player of all time? When you have such a miserable record in slams against not one, but TWO of your biggest rivals? When you only start winning again when Djokovic is injured?
I mean, take off the Fed-shaped specs and look at the facts objectively. There is much of the modern day Emerson about him. He hoovered up titles when the opposition was weak. That is why total slams can only ever be part of the measure. To deny it is to place Emerson above Laver.
His inability to win the Grand Slam also is a definite black mark against his claims to GOAT-ness. One slam on clay simply doesn't cut it.
NADAL -a brilliant competitor. The heart of a lion. A will to never give up, the likes of which we've not seen since the glory days of Jimbo. And he moved the game forward with his demolitions of the previous best player in the world, Federer. But the facts don't lie. His skills failed to translate fully to anything other than clay courts. Sure, at his uninjured peak he matched or defeated Federer on most surfaces other than indoor hard, but when Djokovic sorted out his head and his stamina, Nadal had no answer. He was left playing catch-up as Djokovic started to defeat him on surface after surface, culminating in the beat-down in Paris.
He has done incredibly well to come back from injury, but he is a shadow of the player he was. Like Federer, he has taken advantage of the most depleted field in tennis history to nab two majors, but does anyone really think that it is as a result of Nadal raising his game to new heights? He suffered at the Australian Open by being given one day less rest than Federer (all fair fans know if the situation was reversed then Nadal would have been holding the trophy), but a fully fit Djokovic would have dispatched them both. And his performances against Federer since have been ample evidence of a player in terminal decline.
Which leaves us with DJOKOVIC -sure, the guy has issues. His game is not the most beautiful to watch. But only the most biased, swivel-eyed, Fedal looney-tune would argue that he isn't the best player of the 3.
The facts, and the evidence of your own eyes-and lived experience- don't lie.
Why do you ignore the fact Djokovic won half his majors in arguably the weakest era ever (2014-2017)?Federer and Nadal. Two of the all-time greats. No doubt about it. But why are their fans so unwilling to believe the evidence of, not only the stats, but their own eyes and own lived experience.
FEDERER -his longevity is incredible. He is a beautiful and graceful tennis player. No one could argue otherwise. But it is beyond question that he took advantage of a very weak era in tennis to hoover up major after major. Look at the facts about his opponents up to 2008.
When Nadal and Djokovic reached maturity he stopped winning slams with such regularity. He continued to win the odd one, sure, but in the big slam meetings with Nadal and Djokovic he was regularly defeated. He is 3-9 to Nadal in slam meetings and 6-9 to Djokovic (2-8 in their last ten meetings!) 9 wins in 27 slam matches against your biggest rivals? Are these really the stats of the greatest player of all time? When you have such a miserable record in slams against not one, but TWO of your biggest rivals? When you only start winning again when Djokovic is injured?
I mean, take off the Fed-shaped specs and look at the facts objectively. There is much of the modern day Emerson about him. He hoovered up titles when the opposition was weak. That is why total slams can only ever be part of the measure. To deny it is to place Emerson above Laver.
His inability to win the Grand Slam also is a definite black mark against his claims to GOAT-ness. One slam on clay simply doesn't cut it.
NADAL -a brilliant competitor. The heart of a lion. A will to never give up, the likes of which we've not seen since the glory days of Jimbo. And he moved the game forward with his demolitions of the previous best player in the world, Federer. But the facts don't lie. His skills failed to translate fully to anything other than clay courts. Sure, at his uninjured peak he matched or defeated Federer on most surfaces other than indoor hard, but when Djokovic sorted out his head and his stamina, Nadal had no answer. He was left playing catch-up as Djokovic started to defeat him on surface after surface, culminating in the beat-down in Paris.
He has done incredibly well to come back from injury, but he is a shadow of the player he was. Like Federer, he has taken advantage of the most depleted field in tennis history to nab two majors, but does anyone really think that it is as a result of Nadal raising his game to new heights? He suffered at the Australian Open by being given one day less rest than Federer (all fair fans know if the situation was reversed then Nadal would have been holding the trophy), but a fully fit Djokovic would have dispatched them both. And his performances against Federer since have been ample evidence of a player in terminal decline.
Which leaves us with DJOKOVIC -sure, the guy has issues. His game is not the most beautiful to watch. But only the most biased, swivel-eyed, Fedal looney-tune would argue that he isn't the best player of the 3.
The facts, and the evidence of your own eyes-and lived experience- don't lie.
How so? Djokovic "hoovered up" titles in an even weaker period.It was impossible to catch Federer with the weak-era lead he built up.
I have repeatedly said that Fed's legacy against those 2 comes down to these 4 matches that he should have won:
W 2008
AO 2009
USO 2010
USO 2011
?
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/ramos-vinolas-late-career-turnarounds-jan-2017
Happy reading.
Darn those pesky facts!
9 wins in 27 slam matches against his co-all-time-greats is THE evidence.
That's it right there. Three incredible players but not peaking at the same time, makes it complicated.And that's the thing, they've never all been at the peak at the same time.
Or for that matter, how many people would be 100% behind Dimitrov if he starts winning slams?No, what I am saying is you won't be seeing many people complaining if Zverev actually does get those numbers, so many will be on his side so to speak...everybody loves a winner, hence why Federer, Nadal and Djokovic has the vast majority of the fans. Whether or not he ends up being greater will be debatable, since you cannot compare era imo, but you are specifically talking about Fed fans complaining, what is to say many don't take a liking to Zverev because he displays champions qualities that attracted them to Federer?
I think there is a difference here. Federer played the top 127 players in the world to win his slams. A lot of players were not allowed the play the slams when Emerson was racking them up, because they were not for pro players. So Emerson was not beating all the top guys in the world due to the way pros were banned from playing slams. However, no one was banned from playing when Federer was winning.
IMO, you cannot compare them.
He's not the best player of the three, not YET.Which leaves us with DJOKOVIC -sure, the guy has issues. His game is not the most beautiful to watch. But only the most biased, swivel-eyed, Fedal looney-tune would argue that he isn't the best player of the 3.
The facts, and the evidence of your own eyes-and lived experience- don't lie.
HEY!!!!!!!!!!Hey, you gotta remember you are talking to a guy who's lived through the Emerson era.
In fairness, he does have a point...Weak era of trolling. Sad.
In fairness, he does have a point...
No tennis player in their 20s right now has won multiple slams....
From September next year (assuming no new GS champions) we wont have any player in his 20s as a slam holder.
Imagine hearing this 10 years ago ... you would have laughed ... whatever way you look at it, the ATP has a talent problem with the young guys, no one NEW is coming in to push these old guys.
When Nadal and Federer inevitably retire, I'd like to see what the response is when Zverev hammers off 20 slams in his career. Either will have to accept Zverev as the GOAT, or blame it on "weak next gen".
I see no signs that Djokovic WAS allowing Fed to beat him before his playing level fell off a cliff late in 2016.The only explanations for that would be that (A) Nadal and Djokovic are much weaker than we thought if they're still allowing Federer to beat them the way he is at 36 (which we know isn't true), or (B) Federer is just so good that he escapes the normal rules.
I can't really answer that question, since if that was at all measurable, the GOAT debate might actually have some meaning to it. I can't define a specific point, or measure the degree of strength for that matter, all I can do is compare relative strength in competition. I don't mean to beat around the bush with your question, but I can't really give a concrete answer to it. For instance, I would say that the field was stronger in 2010 than it was in 2004, but it's really impossible to prove that statement, let alone anything that would have fallen in-between.
In what world should Fed have won W 2008? Fed wins two tie breaks and is fortunate to take it to a fifth set and he should have won the match lol.
Frankly Nadal was just as worthy if not more of winning W 2007 as Fed was of winning those two.
Yes I do. Do you have a better comeback?Do you even follow tennis?
Djokovic's era was so tough his biggest competitors for much of his peak were 5-years-past-his-prime Papa Federer and all-time-great Muzzah.
In all seriousness, how do "weak era" proponents not see that for much of Nadal and especially Djokovic's dominant periods, literally their greatest/only real competition was a "fraud" who only won a bunch of slams thanks to said weak era, or so the story goes?
If the Nadal and Djokovic era was full of such strong players, why did Fed and the 30+ crowd (weak era players) fare so well against them long after their collective peak?
Djokovic the best? He lost 5 slam finals to Murray and Wawrinka. Fedal doesn't nearly have as many embarrassing losses in finals.
See, you can make everyone a mug if you look from the right perspective.
Ever hear of the Men's Pro Tour? Laver played that tour for 5 of his prime years, yet still won 11 slams. Rosewall played on that tour for 11 of his prime years, yet still won 8 slams, 4 after turning 33 when the open era began. Emerson won most of his amateur slams when the very best players were on the pro tour. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez are the greatest players of the post 1950 era just about equal in greatness, in different ways-IMO. Sampras, due to his poor clay court record is just below the other mentioned, but aboveEmerson 12-Laver-11. How's that?
I'd say in some cases more like 95% Federer, but that missing 5% was all the edge he needed.Djokovic did display his absolutely mastery of an 80% Federer. Federer was no slouch in 2014/15. He just physically could not exchange fire from the baseline with Djokovic over 5 sets, so it is an interesting question who wins peak-to-peak.
See this is what I like, a fair argument without insults or flaming.
Shut up fool.
Heard that in Mr T's voice.
I don't know why you're using the word 'blame' here -- nice straw man fallacy, though -- this thread seems to be full of that. Like, honestly, how do you even derive a response like that from what I said? Over your head, apparently.You mean, kinda like you're blaming Fed winning 19 slams on 2004-2007 "weak era"?
So what exactly makes you the moral high ground here? I must have missed it.
That's it right there. Three incredible players but not peaking at the same time, makes it complicated.
The bottom line: It ain't over till it's over.
Things will not be clear until all three are retired.
What facts? I’ve yet to see you prove how Djokovic is a better player than federer.They never engage with the facts. All they have is their shouts of "Troll!" and their childish little gifs.
One wonders if they actually have any interest in tennis.
The evidence is that Novak Djokovic has a disgraceful record in converting his opportunities at the US Open, and this has cost him a chance at GOAThood.
2007 - lost in F vs. Federer
2008 - lost in SF vs. Federer
2009 - lost in SF vs. Federer
2010 - lost in F vs. Nadal
2011 - won
2012 - lost in F vs. Murray
2013 - lost in F vs. Nadal
2014 - lost in SF vs. Nishikori
2015 - won
2016 - lost in F vs. Wawrinka
10 consecutive semi-finals, but converted only 2 into wins. Lost against five different opponents.
And the OP has the gall to claim that this man stands above Federer and Nadal.
Begone, fake news bringer - begone!