duaneeo
Legend
Did you not read the title of the thread? The last 9 slams. So, I'm comparing the 9 previous slams.
The last 9 slams - Fed 3 - Rafa 3 - Novak 3 - Who was the most hurt during this period in regards to the slam race?
Did you not read the title of the thread? The last 9 slams. So, I'm comparing the 9 previous slams.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I read it. As I said, doubling the period in question seems to me an odd way to count, as it involves starting a streak with something that wasn’t the start of a streak. Evidently your mileage varies.
duaneeo
Legend
This is getting ridiculous.
I was making a comparison...not starting a streak...and why would I compare Fedalovic's results from the last 9 slams with their results from the last 8 or 10 slams? Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic each won 3 of the last 9 slams. Djokovic won 5, and Federer and Nadal won 0 of the 9 previous slams. To make one more comparison, Nadal won 3, Djokovic won 2, and Federer won 1 of the 9 slams (2012 Wim - 2014 Wim) before that.
The Fedfather
Legend
It is debatable.
Getting older and gaining more mileage on the body yet still being behind by the same number of Slams applies to Djokovic with both Nadal and Federer, and the same goes for him being disadvantaged if they win Slams. So these disadvantages are common for both Nadal and Djokovic.
Now for the positives, I think that while Rafa did have close opportunities he missed, it was quite fortunate for him to regain good form right at the time when Djokovic had his slump (this isn't a slight against Rafa, Roger benefitted from Djokovic's absence just as much). In 2015 and 2016 it was very far from certain that he would make a Slam final again. So maybe he could get more out of this period but he got enough.
Djokovic, on the other hand, wasn't able to capitalize on the not very competitive draws which judging by his form he could definitely be one of the main contenders for all 4 Slams if it weren't for struggles with injury/personal issues. There's no way to know if he would've moved ahead of Nadal by now but it is a missed opportunity, just like him closing in on Federer's total.
clout
Hall of Fame
Probably Novak cuz Roger is 5 years older and his time on tour is limited. Also Rafa’s always had Fed’s number whenever they matched up (besides 2017), and Rafa and his camp have always viewed Fed as a superior player and a measurement for success. Novak on the other hand, has not only prevented Rafa from catching Fed but Novak himself is really beginning to creep up on Rafa. Nadal obviously respects Nole a lot and on the surface, they get along just fine, but deep down, Rafa probably hates the dude lol
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
It's not as clear cut as either side presents it.
On one hand, the gap is the same for Nadal as it was after RG 14, and for Djokovic after RG 16.
Considering Fed's age etc, what he did was the most impressive.
On the other hand, the whole landscape has changed, whether it was due to Fed showing it can be done or just we underestimated them or weak era or whatever reason you want to ascribe to it, back then many did not know or think Djokovic and Nadal can could win slams after 30. Each has won 3.
And with Fed possibly finally coming to a halt, it provides an opportunity that many thought might not exist then.
Now I'm not saying they can go on for many years with no end in sight, but just a couple years with a stable target, even with the same deficit might be a positive.
Djokovic and Nadal definitely blew their chances more in absolute fact than Federer, since after all these years the gap is similar with them all older.
However because of the aforementioned factors and the changing tennis landscape, I would bet if they handicapped odds, Djokovic and Nadal would have the same or slightly better odds to catch up as compared to what they had back in 2016 and 2014 respectively.
A bit of a paradox!
On one hand, the gap is the same for Nadal as it was after RG 14, and for Djokovic after RG 16.
Considering Fed's age etc, what he did was the most impressive.
On the other hand, the whole landscape has changed, whether it was due to Fed showing it can be done or just we underestimated them or weak era or whatever reason you want to ascribe to it, back then many did not know or think Djokovic and Nadal can could win slams after 30. Each has won 3.
And with Fed possibly finally coming to a halt, it provides an opportunity that many thought might not exist then.
Now I'm not saying they can go on for many years with no end in sight, but just a couple years with a stable target, even with the same deficit might be a positive.
Djokovic and Nadal definitely blew their chances more in absolute fact than Federer, since after all these years the gap is similar with them all older.
However because of the aforementioned factors and the changing tennis landscape, I would bet if they handicapped odds, Djokovic and Nadal would have the same or slightly better odds to catch up as compared to what they had back in 2016 and 2014 respectively.
A bit of a paradox!
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Wrong. Age-related decline typically accelerates with age so someone who is 5 years further on but still bucking the trend/history and pegging the relative achievements (in a defined period as is the case here) to his peers is the net winner of this scenario (as always, relative to the others.)
No matter how you try to bake it, as 37 year old winning majors is a vastly, vastly less likely scenario than a 31/32 year old historically. Nadal should definitely have been catching up to Federer at this point but he's not and that is to his GOAT prospects detriment. For well over two years when he should have been doing well he's made a net zero improvement to his GOAT prospects.
The Fedfather
Legend
Federer is the winner, I am not arguing this. Nadal trying but not being able to catch up to Federer is certainly a big disappointment for him, but it could've (potentially) been worse for Rafa if Djokovic maintained good form. I explained why IMO Djokovic's chances for the Slam record were hurt the most, considering his and Nadal's potential at that period.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
You’re convinced you’re right, I’m convinced I am, and we’re not going to convince each other.
mahesh69a
Semi-Pro
The real people who were hurt were the younger players (when there was a possible power vacuum at the beginning on 2017 with Djokovic, Murray, Stan not doing well and Federer, Nadal having not won slams for years). Federer and Nadal shut down the door quickly (even though they were not really playing anywhere near their top).
Of the Big 3, I think it is Fed who gained the most and Djokovic who lost(???) the most (Nadal most likely would have won the 2 FO anyway). Lets wait and see how it affects their overall numbers.
Of the Big 3, I think it is Fed who gained the most and Djokovic who lost(???) the most (Nadal most likely would have won the 2 FO anyway). Lets wait and see how it affects their overall numbers.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Isn't the answer to this question, the guy that is in third place? This is simply because he has the most to make up if he wants to break the record. Djoker was 5 behind at the end of 2016, he is 5 behind now but he is two years older. Same applies to Rafa too obviously but he is only three behind.
aman92
Legend
That's why I said.. Losing those 2 finals means he has been hurt the most
tennisfan2015
Hall of Fame
As an OCD person I am convinced he does.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
No, because that completely ignores what the situation would have been, if Nadal won those matches. He is the biggest loser of the three (literally).
BTW, Djokovic is also one year younger than Nadal, which many people seem to forget.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
No, because that completely ignores what the situation would have been, if Nadal won those matches. He is the biggest loser of the three (literally).
BTW, Djokovic is also one year younger than Nadal, which many people seem to forget.
I guess, but dealing with who actually won the matches and not hypotheticals means that the guy in 3rd place has the same amount of work to do but is two years more advanced in age. Would you suggest that Federer winning three slams didn't make it harder for Djokovic in his attempt at the slam record?
AO 2017 hurt Rafa the most, no doubt because that was a two-slam turnaround (18 - 14 instead of 17 - 15), but Wimby 2017 and AO 2018 put and 8 slam gap between Djokerer. All the while Rafa was keeping pace with Fed's slam winning. Now, this is not great that Rafa was going slam-for-slam with Fed and not eating into the slam record but it has meant that Djoker's increadible tear of 3 slams in a row has only just brought him back to where he was after RG 2016. I know that the assumption is that Djoker will use that momentum to go on and dominate this season but as we know too well, there are no guarantees of that.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Yes, but if you look at the thread title, it doesn't stipulate that the only interesting part is the current situation, but rather how the events leading to it should be viewed.
You also forgot AO2019, which was also a two Majors swing.
Djokovic is also the youngest, so the assumption that he will manage to go longer than Nadal, is there.
However, it is the first time I think that, if any of these players loses his form for more than one season, he will not be able to reinvent himself, and bounce back strong. If that is true, we are in for a real dogfight in the next one and a half years.
Yes i agree, but i can understand people who think Nadal was hurt the most. It depends on if you look at Big3 as "equal" after FO16 or not. For me this is very relevant. Nadal hadnt won a slam in more than 2 years, and just lost R1 at AO16 and pulled out of FO with injury. Federer was slamless sinse 2012. Djokovic just turned 29 and almost everyone expected him to close the gap the next 2-3 years. This is why i think he was hurt the most.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Well, well, well, Hitman - I see what you did. You opened this can of worms way more than 12 hours ago, my time, then you disappeared. I see a method to your madness!
There is no way I can vote in this poll. Three top players are right where they were a couple years ago in relationship to each other, with Djokovic actually much farther behind three slams ago but now back in the same place. It's a lot like watching a race, seeing three competitors jockeying for position, but more like one of them started first!
My guess, as of this moment, is that Nadal will creep up closer to Fed, and Djokovic will creep up closer to Nadal, and RG will be crucial for Nadal and Novak. If Nadal wins RG, something that is by no means a given, then Novak has to win another slam to be back in the same position re Nadal, and Nadal is closer to Fed. If Nadal gets to the same number as Fed, I don't think anything is going to counter-balance the overall H2H between them, which still favors Nadal. Only rabid Fed fans can overlook a career dominance on clay.
The big question in my mind - does Fed have another slam in him? My guess is no, but I'd love to be wrong. He could certainly get red hot and win over Nadal again on a fast surface, but can we guarantee at this point that someone else won't take him out?
Let's see how injuries go this year. Injuries are always the greatest X factor. If I had to bet on one guy, it would be on the youngest, but anything could happen in a year.
I will say one thing: the biggest winner, which is not what you asked, is Fed - by winning three more slams past an age when anyone thought it possible. It may not be enough to preserve his slam advantage, but it gives him a chance to hang in there.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
It is only a personal opinion, of course, but could you elaborate why advantage in virtually every other category except for clay can be overlooked?
For someone who spent time researching the game that statement sounds absolutely ridiculous.
0 competition from the next generation... no the next two generations.
I couldn’t care less whether or not I’m on the ignore list of a troll. Go for it.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I don't see why the H2H is prioritary in the case of a tie.
Dear Gary, I have to say that I suggested in 2015 that Federer winning more GS at this point was not just possible, but likely. This was based on my assessment that he significantly improved his game.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
Definitely Nadal. He had a one and a half year window with his professional tormentor sidelined by physical and mental breakdown. All he had to do was beat some weak era beneficiary and he'd have cleaned up. But he couldn't do it. Probably the most monumental failure in human history.
(Jokes aside it's still definitely Nadal)
(Jokes aside it's still definitely Nadal)
Nadal_Django
Legend
Excellent post. My thoughts also.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
Who let Paris Hilton onto the internet again?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
It is especially perplexing given the history of the H2Hs amongst ATGs from different generations. It is not even out of line with that, let alone that to be a deciding metric .
In your thread about John Millman you presented yourself as a decent person.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
In 2015 I agreed with you, for the same reasons, but I remain unconvinced that all those improvements were enough to beat Novak at the top of his game, and I don't see Fed, at his age, getting those extra three slams against Novak continuing to play at his later 2014 to early 2015 level.
I DO, however, believe that Fed's tactics and skills have improved, and on that basis I believe that young Fed, if he had been trained in a way to do what he is now doing, would have been an even more dominant player in his prime.
I believe ALL of the Big Three have improved so much that they would easily beat their younger selves if they could have their young bodies magically returned to them. What is changing the sport, and all sports really, is that as people age, they lose less of their old physical advantages. They fade more slowly and allow greater experience to triumph over many things. This is how I see it: if tomorrow the aging process were slowed down so that men could reach their prime at close to 30 and then stay there for decades, why would athletes not continue to get better and better because they know more? If all these Big Three could have the speed they had in their mid 20s given back again along with the ability to recover as they did back then, they would all be playing obviously better. It's always the matter of a balance between experience, which always improves everything, and Father Time, which destroys everything.
Dear Gary, we can agree to agree on this one.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You hit the nail on the head with the bolded. That's why I don't believe no amount of experience would be enough to overcome a younger ATG.
That's whyvI laugh when people say 2019 Djokovic would beat 2011 Djokovic.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
He just said that he hit with Millman, which is quite the accolade for anyone playing tennis.
He didn't "present" himself in any light.
Your effort at playing cultured is laughable.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
He just said that he hit with Millman, which is quite the accolade for anyone playing tennis.
He didn't "present" himself in any light.
Your effort at playing cultured is laughable.
In my experience, anyone who genuinely believes Federer was better than ever in 2015 isn't worth spending brain power conversing with beyond simple insults, but I do admire your efforts.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
He just said that he hit with Millman, which is quite the accolade for anyone playing tennis.
He didn't "present" himself in any light.
Your effort at playing cultured is laughable.
As a recent (very brief) hitting partner of a current top 40 ATP player does my opinion about what age players peak hold more weight than 'online player-obsessed fan no. 6423'?
It is nice, though, that some opinions are so clearly and perhaps willfully misinformed that they don't even require debunking.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
As a recent (very brief) hitting partner of a current top 40 ATP player does my opinion about what age players peak hold more weight than 'online player-obsessed fan no. 6423'?
It is nice, though, that some opinions are so clearly and perhaps willfully misinformed that they don't even require debunking.
It certainly carries enough weight to be worth listening to, because, unlike the aforementioned fan no. 6423, you probably have noticed the effects of learning and ageing while developing what seems to be a pretty competent game.
Also, thanks for the other thread. Such threads make this place valuable.
I think I'm a better player now than when I was at 24 because I've practised for another 10 years and I've got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don't have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it's ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I've had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August 2015, Cincinnati).
Tennis_Hands
Banned
HetTheGreaterer
Banned
Or even 2 consecutively
As a recent (very brief) hitting partner of a current top 40 ATP player does my opinion about what age players peak hold more weight than 'online player-obsessed fan no. 6423'?
It is nice, though, that some opinions are so clearly and perhaps willfully misinformed that they don't even require debunking.
You don't have issues with me, but with Federer.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
It certainly carries enough weight to be worth listening to, because, unlike the aforementioned fan no. 6423, you probably have noticed the effects of learning and ageing while developing what seems to be a pretty competent game.
Also, thanks for the other thread. Such threads make this place valuable.
No worries bud, happy to share. When Fed calls me up for a hit you'll be the first to know.
I'm not trying to boast when I say I'm probably on the higher end of club players, I did play on my university's squad for a while, but even though I have better technique and shot selection now I would give it all up to be able to run like I could when I was 22. I'm talking full sprints all day until players who were better than me were so frustrated and tired that they just wanted matches to be over.
Now I'm the one getting frustrated by late teens with limitless energy
In the pro game where the physicality and technique is upped to the nth degree and the tour has shifted to long, grueling rallies rather than pure shotmaking and first strike, to think that someone in their mid 30s would be a better competitor than they were in their physical prime mid 20s is just....beyond stupid. Stupid doesn't even come close to describing it.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
You are wrong.
It is on you whether to believe what someone (be it Federer) says.
Just sit back and wait until a 34 year old Djokovic is struggling to hang on in the top 10 and still claiming that he's playing his best tennis. Then we'll see how much value AlwaysBeConspicuouslyDim puts on player quotes.
You are calling Federer stupid? I find interesting your transformation from a starstruck amateur player who is happy to play with John Millman (but without talking too much) into a TTW bully who insults people without having a faintest idea who they are.
Read the question again you blind Nadal follower. Question is not who is hurt most by not winning. Question is who is hurt most given the 3 won and equal number of slams.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
And I find your continuation as a shameless fan of one single tennis player to the detriment of all others equally interesting. I'm not sure what your personal circumstances are, and if some misfortune had led to you having these blatantly incorrect beliefs about player performance in mid-30s then I'm sorry for that, but it doesn't make what you're saying any less wrong.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
Completely different ball game on clay. Nadal gets more time to do what he wants on clay. The AO has no baring at all on what will happen once Nadal is on clay, added to the fact he hopefully isn't just back from another layoff. I expect tough battles between them both on clay.
As I said, you don't have issues with me, but with Federer, and it is not a theoretical discussion. I find it disrespectful to question self-assessment of a player. You, yourself said it that your best time was when you were 22. I would consider inappropriate to question that as I consider inappropriate to question Federer's statement. Regarding my personal circumstances, I am not going to go into details, but what could be relevant is that I have published >100 scientific peer-reviewed articles in well-established scientific journals and a good portion of them were related to ageing (research for which I have been awarded millions that yielded some pretty significant findings). And it is not about whether you agree with me or not, it is about politeness. I did not know you and your account of interaction with Millman was so nice that I thought about you "what a nice human being". You just surprised me; if that was written by some other TTW posters I wouldn't be surprised. Have a good life.
