Adriano Panatta says : "Roger is still the GOAT despite Novak's 23 slams ..."

[Razer]

Panatta, who himself won the French Open in 1976, expressed his belief that Federer’s greatness extends beyond mere statistics and aesthetics. He emphasized that tennis is a dynamic sport, constantly evolving with changes in equipment, court surfaces, playing styles, and other factors. Panatta is the only player who defeated Björn Borg at Roland Garros and he did it twice.

In an interview by Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, reported by MSN, Panatta said, “Nothing changes for me: Roger Federer is the greatest. It’s not just a question of aesthetics”. He further asserted, ” And not even of statistics, which they like so much but leave the time they find.”“Let me explain better: Borg in the few years he has played concentrated more Grand Slam victories than Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer combined,” Panatta points out. He suggests that instead of crowning a single player as the GOAT, each tennis great should be celebrated for dominating their respective historical periods. Panatta argues that comparisons between eras do not hold much significance either.
During the same interview, Panatta further emphasizes the futility of trying to determine a singular GOAT in tennis. “They are all great,” he states. “There is no greatest.” He highlights the sport’s constant evolution, where changes in rackets, courts, balls, and playing styles make direct comparisons challenging.

via Reuters

“Djokovic says he’s the best? I propose that we deal with it,” Panatta challenged. By encouraging a focus on appreciating and respecting the achievements of all tennis greats, Panatta aims to move beyond the fruitless GOAT debate and promote a deeper understanding of the sport’s evolution.

‘Nothing Changes for Me’ - Despite Novak Djokovic’s Historic Feat, Italian Tennis Legend Sings Roger Federer’s Praises as He Refuses to Put the G.O.A.T Debate to Rest - EssentiallySports

Tennis legend Adriano Panatta asserts that Roger Federer is the GOAT, despite Novak Djokovic's 23 Slams, as he argues the nature of the sport.

www.essentiallysports.com

 

[Third Serve]

based and redpilled

 

[NoleFam]

Adriano Panatta claims Novak Djokovic faked injury at the Australian Open to trick players

Novak Djokovic faked his injury to distract his opponents and that is the reason he won the Australian Open according to Adriano Pinnata.

firstsportz.com

Adriano Panatta: "Novak Djokovic is really unpleasant"

During the show: Un Giorno da Pecora, broadcast on Italian Radio Rai Uno, the legend of Italian tennis Adriano Panatta talked about many issues, in particular commenting on his thoughts on the Big Three

www.financial-world.org

I'm not biased, no. I promise you I'm not. This guy's opinion is worth about as much as any troll on the internet.

 

[Razer]

Adriano Panatta claims Novak Djokovic faked injury at the Australian Open to trick players

Novak Djokovic faked his injury to distract his opponents and that is the reason he won the Australian Open according to Adriano Pinnata.

firstsportz.com

Redirect Notice

Adriano Panatta: "Novak Djokovic is really unpleasant"

During the show: Un Giorno da Pecora, broadcast on Italian Radio Rai Uno, the legend of Italian tennis Adriano Panatta talked about many issues, in particular commenting on his thoughts on the Big Three

www.financial-world.org

I'm not biased, no. I promise you I'm not. This guy's opinion is worth about as much as any troll on the internet.

So Panatta is a hater of Novak ?

 

[NoleFam]

So Panatta is a hater of Novak ?

Yea he's a Djokovic hater and Federer fan, and there's plenty of them to go around. Lol.

 

[Razer]

Yea he's a Djokovic hater and Federer fan, and there's plenty of them to go around. Lol.

True, those articles are terrible. Can't believe he said all those. A former french open champ saying all this, ridiculous....

 

[Biotic]

Lmao

 

[Razer]

Panatta might have been respected if he talked of Laver/Borg/Pete and their attributes, but he chose to talk of aestehtics and Roger.
Being a former french open champion talks of aesthetics dont suit him, clay court Tennis is not about aesthetics.

 

[NoleFam]

True, those articles are terrible. Can't believe he said all those. A former french open saying all this, ridiculous....

Openly talking about a legend of the game like that. Shows you how much disrespect Djokovic has received even from people around the game.

 

[Lauren_Girl']

Panatta, who himself won the French Open in 1976, expressed his belief that Federer’s greatness extends beyond mere statistics and aesthetics. He emphasized that tennis is a dynamic sport, constantly evolving with changes in equipment, court surfaces, playing styles, and other factors. Panatta is the only player who defeated Björn Borg at Roland Garros and he did it twice.

In an interview by Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, reported by MSN, Panatta said, “Nothing changes for me: Roger Federer is the greatest. It’s not just a question of aesthetics”. He further asserted, ” And not even of statistics, which they like so much but leave the time they find.”“Let me explain better: Borg in the few years he has played concentrated more Grand Slam victories than Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer combined,” Panatta points out. He suggests that instead of crowning a single player as the GOAT, each tennis great should be celebrated for dominating their respective historical periods. Panatta argues that comparisons between eras do not hold much significance either.
During the same interview, Panatta further emphasizes the futility of trying to determine a singular GOAT in tennis. “They are all great,” he states. “There is no greatest.” He highlights the sport’s constant evolution, where changes in rackets, courts, balls, and playing styles make direct comparisons challenging.

via Reuters

“Djokovic says he’s the best? I propose that we deal with it,” Panatta challenged. By encouraging a focus on appreciating and respecting the achievements of all tennis greats, Panatta aims to move beyond the fruitless GOAT debate and promote a deeper understanding of the sport’s evolution.

‘Nothing Changes for Me’ - Despite Novak Djokovic’s Historic Feat, Italian Tennis Legend Sings Roger Federer’s Praises as He Refuses to Put the G.O.A.T Debate to Rest - EssentiallySports

Tennis legend Adriano Panatta asserts that Roger Federer is the GOAT, despite Novak Djokovic's 23 Slams, as he argues the nature of the sport.

www.essentiallysports.com

There will always be a few exceptions of course. But from what I'm hearing on Eurosport, ESPN and other channels, most former players or tennis specialists were saying Djokovic is the Goat before this RG. The majority of Fedal fans commenting on Youtube also acknowledge that Djokovic is the greatest.

Unless you consider "popularity" as a significant criteria, this is no longer up to debate.
29>26>23
23>22>20
388>310>209
7>5
38>36>28
30>29 and 27>23
1 NCYGS > 0 NCYGS
3 CGS > 0 TCS
2 DCM > 0 DCM

In a couple of decades from now, nobody will care that some players had more fans than some other players. Only the numbers and records will matter.

 

[Razer]

Openly talking about a kegend of the game like that. Shows you how much disrespect Djokovic has received even from people around the game.

Yup, thats why numbers are so important.....

Most people are silent now except some fringe outfits, that voice will also go down once Novak wins more slams, lets hope he keeps on winning slams for another 12 months, more the merrier, good for tennis that some hype is generated and good for novak as well...

 

[NoleFam]

Yup, thats why numbers are so important.....

Most people are silent now except some fringe outfits, that voice will also go down once Novak wins more slams, lets hope he keeps on winning slams for another 12 months, more the merrier, good for tennis that some hype is generated and good for novak as well...

Yea numbers are the most important and Djokovic has them, so people like this guy can say whatever he wants. Lol

It was very quiet from mainstream media on Sunday.

 

[ChrisRF]

"There is no greatest" and "Roger Federer is the greatest" in the same interview.

And what on earth is the meaning of this: "Borg in the few years he has played concentrated more Grand Slam victories than Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer combined" ?

 

[Razer]

Yea numbers are the most important and Djokovic has them, so people like this guy can say whatever he wants. Lol

It was very quiet from mianstream media on Sunday.

I think Panatta and Mary Carillo have expressed their opinion after 23, rest all are silent. Clearly haters.

 

[robthai]

objectively speaking, people can no longer call Fed the greatest of all time when Djokovic has all the records now. One could say that Fed played at a higher level during his period of dominance in his 20s. Same can be said for Nadal. Where Djokovic has them beat is his longevity. The man basically had two goat periods, one in his 20s and the other in his 30s. Fedal both only had one period of dominance over the entire tour.

 

[mattennis]

He could have a point if he didn't mention Federer, that there is only the greatest player of each era.

But very few people will dispute that Djokovic is the greatest player of the last 15-20 years.

 

[LaVie en Rose]

True, those articles are terrible. Can't believe he said all those. A former french open champ saying all this, ridiculous....

That's nothing Novak didn't face all these years. It's consistent organized negative campaign against him.His answer is WINNING
Btw , what changed since 2 days so you got back to average TTW poster mode ?

 

[NoleFam]

I think Panatta and Mary Carillo have expressed their opinion after 23, rest all are silent. Only these 2 have expressed, clearly haters.

No some former players expressed their opinions on Twitter. I think most knew Djokovic would end up with the most so it wasn't a surprise that that day finally came.

 

[ghostofMecir]

I have no problem with anyone saying Djokovic is the GOAT because of the numbers he has on his side, how he’s played against other top players, his longevity, etc.

But there are sometimes nuances that have to be considered. First of all, two points (really a few cms) and it’s 21 slams each. There’s no huge gulf here right now between the three.

Federer lost too many close matches to keep the numbers based GOAT argument. He could have easily won many more slams but basically lost every close match against Nadal and Djokovic save a few and then lost the Delpo USO match and the Safin AO match to compound things. There are for sure, mitigating circumstances about why he lost those matches (noted below) but in the end he did lose them, and then lost the numbers based GOAT argument.

But there are points in his favor.

—He overcame big disadvantages in technology, i.e., racket size. Had he switched to a bigger racket head earlier, who knows how good he could have been. He was unlucky to come into an era in transition, where serve and volley was going out, faster surfaces were going out, and the advantages one gets from a one-handed backhand or the smaller racket ere almost all gone. There was no way to know this would happen when he was a junior. Nobody with a one-handed BH has been an all time great returner since two-handed BHs came in popular use though JMac at his peak had great returning seasons.
—He overcame having a stroke, i.e., one-handed BH that became pretty much obsolete especially on return though he overcame that late with a bigger racket and playing ultra aggressively with it which is hard to sustain against other ATGs playing a much safer game.
—He had to deal with TWO ATGs both with cases for GOATdom rising very early in his reign (basically from 2005 and for sure from 2008) who both played a more modern game than he did, and had superior racket technology for the times they were playing in. This made a huge impact on Federer’s psyche and the fact that he held him off for so long, longer than anyone else has held off Competitors, is a testament to his unparalleled skill and talent.
—He has the most aesthetically pleasing game in an era THAT DOESN'T FAVOR this game; you will not see anyone playing an aesthetically pleasing game win as much as Roger did anytime soon. The two other best players ever play a much different game than he does and every other player that’s going to challenge for best player ever going forward will almost surely play closer to what Djokovic and Nadal play than the way Federer does.
—He has arguably a higher peak than Novak


Despite all these disadvantages, he won what he did WHILE squandering away the most matches in history in which he was the better player. Either way, all the losses from a winning position hurts his GOAT argument, but purely as a player, he has the argument as the best ever.

 

[Winners or Errors]

He could have a point if he didn't mention Federer, that there is only the greatest player of each era.

But very few people will dispute that Djokovic is the greatest player of the last 15-20 years.

Maybe 11-12, not 15-20

 

[jl809]

everyone, say it with me now:

“How exactly do we measure greatness? By the number of titles? The number of grand slams? Maybe. But not only. Because there are certain things that numbers can't convey. Numbers won't show that this man plays tennis more beautifully than anyone before. They won't show that this man is the all time most

 

[vex]

Roger definitely isn’t the solo GOAT but frankly none of them ever were. The B3 are the GOATs and this era was amazing.

That said, I can’t blame Djoker fans for at least trying to float thier arguments considering years of being inundated with numbers by the legions of Fed fans on here. You reap what you sow.

 

[TheNachoMan]

He has the most aesthetically pleasing game

“pretty backhand, no?”

 

[Razer]

I have no problem with anyone saying Djokovic is the GOAT because of the numbers he has on his side, how he’s played against other top players, his longevity, etc.

But there are sometimes nuances that have to be considered. First of all, two points (really a few cms) and it’s 21 slams each. There’s no huge gulf here right now between the three.

Federer lost too many close matches to keep the numbers based GOAT argument. He could have easily won many more slams but basically lost every close match against Nadal and Djokovic save a few and then lost the Delpo USO match and the Safin AO match to compound things. There are for sure, mitigating circumstances about why he lost those matches (noted below) but in the end he did lose them, and then lost the numbers based GOAT argument.

But there are points in his favor.

—He overcame big disadvantages in technology, i.e., racket size. Had he switched to a bigger racket head earlier, who knows how good he could have been. He was unlucky to come into an era in transition, where serve and volley was going out, faster surfaces were going out, and the advantages one gets from a one-handed backhand or the smaller racket ere almost all gone. There was no way to know this would happen when he was a junior. Nobody with a one-handed BH has been an all time great returner since two-handed BHs came in popular use though JMac at his peak had great returning seasons.
—He overcame having a stroke, i.e., one-handed BH that became pretty much obsolete especially on return though he overcame that late with a bigger racket and playing ultra aggressively with it which is hard to sustain against other ATGs playing a much safer game.
—He had to deal with TWO ATGs both with cases for GOATdom rising very early in his reign (basically from 2005 and for sure from 2008) who both played a more modern game than he did, and had superior racket technology for the times they were playing in. This made a huge impact on Federer’s psyche and the fact that he held him off for so long, longer than anyone else has turned off. Competitors, is a testament to his unparalleled skill and talent.
—He has the most aesthetically pleasing game in an era THAT DOESN'T FAVOR this game; you will not see anyone playing an aesthetically pleasing game win as much as Roger did anytime soon. The two other best players ever play a much different game than he does and every other player that’s going to challenge for best player ever going forward will almost surely play closer to what Djokovic and Nadal play than the way Federer does.
—He has arguably a higher peak than Novak


Despite all these disadvantages, he won what he did WHILE squandering away the most matches in history in which he was the better player. Either way, all the losses from a winning position hurts his GOAT argument, but purely as a player, he has the argument as the best ever.

All of your points are right but the 2 points (few cms) giving 21 each is not right IMO, this is because often greatness is determined by those 2 points and a few cms itself. We have heard Nadal fans say that if 2012AO and 2018W went the other way he would be GOAT, but then why should those matches go the other way? The fact that Federer's 2 points and Nadal's 2 didn't go the other way shows how clutch and how good Novak is. We think it is is luck but it is not, he is that damn good. His mentality is what has made him so good, greatness in sports is not all about playing level only, it has mindset also factored in, big difference. Novak's mindset under adversity is second to none, this is very imortant factor which Fedal fans don't appreciate much, especially Fed fans.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Ultronians, attack!!

 

[TheNachoMan]

everyone, say it with me now:

“How exactly do we measure greatness? By the number of titles? The number of grand slams? Maybe. But not only. Because there are certain things that numbers can't convey. Numbers won't show that this man plays tennis more beautifully than anyone before. They won't show that this man is the all time most

How exactly do we measure greatness? By the number of titles? The number of grand slams? Maybe, but not only. Because there are certain things numbers can’t convey, numbers won’t show that this man plays tennis more beautifully than anyone before. Numbers won’t show that this man is the all time most revered athlete in the world for his grace and elegance on and off the court. The truth is, from here on out, whatever the scoreboard says, his legend can only grow, because in time, Roger Federer‘s legacy will prove more perpetual than any number.

 

[Kralingen]

The problem is Roger was so universally accepted as GOAT throughout the 2010s imo

They crowned him far too readily and far too early

If we had just stuck to the can’t compare eras thing all along things never would’ve gotten to this

 

[TheNachoMan]

The problem is Roger was so universally accepted as GOAT throughout the 2010s imo

They crowned him far too readily and far too early

If we had just stuck to the can’t compare eras thing all along things never would’ve gotten to this

Not even throughout the 2010s, I remember Fed being crowned king when I was 8 or 9. It was instilled into my young impressionable mind.

 

[Red Rick]

Guys what happened to 20>17>12 I am so confused

 

[Razer]

Not even throughout the 2010s, I remember Fed being crowned king when I was 8 or 9. It was instilled into my young impressionable mind.

The day Federer double bageled Hewitt in 2004 he started to being hailed as GOAT, it only became official in 2009 but it all started after that deadly beating of Hewitt

Federer: ‘This guy could be the greatest of all-time’

Too easy. That's how Roger Federer makes tennis seem. He takes a game filled with grunts and looks as if he's gliding effortlessly on the court, almost floating, artistically painting lines and corners with winners. Federer routed 2001 champion Lleyton Hewitt 6-0, 7-6 (3), 6-0 in the United...

mg.co.za

 

[NoleFam]

The problem is Roger was so universally accepted as GOAT throughout the 2010s imo

They crowned him far too readily and far too early

If we had just stuck to the can’t compare eras thing all along things never would’ve gotten to this

It's too late. They let the cat out of the bag. Lol

 

[Backspin1183]

Fact.
Djokovic needs at least 26 Slams to be GOAT. Because half of his Slams are asterisked.

 

[LaVie en Rose]

everyone, say it with me now:

“How exactly do we measure greatness? By the number of titles? The number of grand slams? Maybe. But not only. Because there are certain things that numbers can't convey. Numbers won't show that this man plays tennis more beautifully than anyone before. They won't show that this man is the all time most

If you didn't that thirsty of attention , maybe your threads&posts would have more traction

Roger definitely isn’t the solo GOAT but frankly none of them ever were. The B3 are the GOATs and this era was amazing

GOAT in tennis can only be one , and RF ain't that one anymore.

Btw fans who watched remember how mad Pannata was when Novak beat RF in Rome F 2015

 

[joekapa]

Panatta can go and whack a pinata.

 

[jm1980]

In an interview by Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, reported by MSN, Panatta said, “Nothing changes for me: Roger Federer is the greatest. It’s not just a question of aesthetics”. He further asserted, ” And not even of statistics, which they like so much but leave the time they find.”“Let me explain better: Borg in the few years he has played concentrated more Grand Slam victories than Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer combined,” Panatta points out. He suggests that instead of crowning a single player as the GOAT, each tennis great should be celebrated for dominating their respective historical periods. Panatta argues that comparisons between eras do not hold much significance either.
During the same interview, Panatta further emphasizes the futility of trying to determine a singular GOAT in tennis. “They are all great,” he states. “There is no greatest.” He highlights the sport’s constant evolution, where changes in rackets, courts, balls, and playing styles make direct comparisons challenging.

What?

 

[robthai]

Roger definitely isn’t the solo GOAT but frankly none of them ever were. The B3 are the GOATs and this era was amazing.

That said, I can’t blame Djoker fans for at least trying to float thier arguments considering years of being inundated with numbers by the legions of Fed fans on here. You reap what you sow.

yes it's true. Same applies to all the weak era trash talk.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Panatta might have been respected if he talked of Laver/Borg/Pete and their attributes, but he chose to talk of aestehtics and Roger.
Being a former french open champion talks of aesthetics dont suit him, clay court Tennis is not about aesthetics.

This is really a post Nadal view of clay. Before he turned up and blew everyone away with his unorthodox looking game and physicality, clay was viewed as requiring a lot of court craft, touch, point construction. A guy like Gaudio saw himself as an artist and put style above results. Some of the French players have said the same over the years. Of course less volleying than on fast surfaces but lots of drop shots, slice, angles, cat and mouse points

Personally I think clay before poly was kind of boring, and can’t enjoy watching old Borg matches on clay, but that wasn’t necessarily the prevailing view

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Roger definitely isn’t the solo GOAT but frankly none of them ever were. The B3 are the GOATs and this era was amazing.

That said, I can’t blame Djoker fans for at least trying to float thier arguments considering years of being inundated with numbers by the legions of Fed fans on here. You reap what you sow.

Agreed. When they played prime for prime there wasn’t enough to separate them to let any one of them stand alone. All three are historical giants

 

[Hitman]

Panatta reminds me of the old Brazil fan, clutching the trophy and crying as Germany's ruthless efficiency destroyed Brazilian style and flair in their own backyard. Panatta holding onto the GOAT title for his idol knowing full well its over.

 

[jm1980]

He could have a point if he didn't mention Federer, that there is only the greatest player of each era.

But very few people will dispute that Djokovic is the greatest player of the last 15-20 years.

For some, Federer will always be the greatest, regardless of what Nadal and Djokovic achieve. That's okay, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

But the stuff Panatta's saying makes no sense, and it's not like it was lost in translation, either

Adriano Panatta, re di Parigi ‘76, i numeri sono molto ma non tutto: secondo lei 23 titoli dello Slam fanno di Novak Djokovic il migliore di ogni tempo?
«Per me non cambia niente: Roger Federer è il più grande. Non è solo una questione di estetica. E nemmeno di statistiche, che piacciono tanto ma lasciano il tempo che trovano. Mi spiego meglio: Borg nei pochi anni che ha giocato ha concentrato più vittorie Slam di Djokovic, Nadal e Federer messi insieme».

La questione si riapre, quindi.
«Facciamo così: sono tutti grandi. Non c’è il più grande. Ognuno domina il suo periodo storico. I paragoni non hanno troppo senso, sono solo fisime giornalistiche: cambiano le racchette, i campi, le palle, il modo di stare in campo e giocare a tennis. Cambia tutto».

Djokovic però al primato tiene: corona un inseguimento a Federer e Nadal iniziato all’Australian Open 2008.
«Lui dice che è il migliore? Propongo di farcene una ragione».

Panatta su Djokovic: «Federer resta il più grande anche dopo i 23 Slam di Nole»

«Per me i 23 Slam non cambiano niente, non è solo una questione di estetica. Borg in pochi anni ha concentrato più Slam di Djokovic, Nadal e Federer. Diciamo che sono tutti grandi, i paragoni non hanno senso»

www.corriere.it

 

[jm1980]

Panatta reminds me of the old Brazil fan, clutching the trophy and crying as Germany's ruthless efficiency destroyed Brazilian style and flair in their own backyard. Panatta holding onto the GOAT title for his idol knowing full well its over.

This guy is a legend. At the end of the match, he gave the trophy to a German fan, and told her they deserved it

 

[nolefam_2024]

Panatta, who himself won the French Open in 1976, expressed his belief that Federer’s greatness extends beyond mere statistics and aesthetics. He emphasized that tennis is a dynamic sport, constantly evolving with changes in equipment, court surfaces, playing styles, and other factors. Panatta is the only player who defeated Björn Borg at Roland Garros and he did it twice.

In an interview by Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, reported by MSN, Panatta said, “Nothing changes for me: Roger Federer is the greatest. It’s not just a question of aesthetics”. He further asserted, ” And not even of statistics, which they like so much but leave the time they find.”“Let me explain better: Borg in the few years he has played concentrated more Grand Slam victories than Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer combined,” Panatta points out. He suggests that instead of crowning a single player as the GOAT, each tennis great should be celebrated for dominating their respective historical periods. Panatta argues that comparisons between eras do not hold much significance either.
During the same interview, Panatta further emphasizes the futility of trying to determine a singular GOAT in tennis. “They are all great,” he states. “There is no greatest.” He highlights the sport’s constant evolution, where changes in rackets, courts, balls, and playing styles make direct comparisons challenging.

via Reuters

“Djokovic says he’s the best? I propose that we deal with it,” Panatta challenged. By encouraging a focus on appreciating and respecting the achievements of all tennis greats, Panatta aims to move beyond the fruitless GOAT debate and promote a deeper understanding of the sport’s evolution.

‘Nothing Changes for Me’ - Despite Novak Djokovic’s Historic Feat, Italian Tennis Legend Sings Roger Federer’s Praises as He Refuses to Put the G.O.A.T Debate to Rest - EssentiallySports

Tennis legend Adriano Panatta asserts that Roger Federer is the GOAT, despite Novak Djokovic's 23 Slams, as he argues the nature of the sport.

www.essentiallysports.com

Hater. Djokovic is the goat. There is no debate left. Accept him as the goat FIRST and then move on..

 

[mattennis]

For some, Federer will always be the greatest, regardless of what Nadal and Djokovic achieve. That's okay, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

But the stuff Panatta's saying makes no sense, and it's not like it was lost in translation, either

Panatta su Djokovic: «Federer resta il più grande anche dopo i 23 Slam di Nole»

«Per me i 23 Slam non cambiano niente, non è solo una questione di estetica. Borg in pochi anni ha concentrato più Slam di Djokovic, Nadal e Federer. Diciamo che sono tutti grandi, i paragoni non hanno senso»

www.corriere.it

Yes, his reasoning is rather curious.

"Per me non cambia niente: Roger Federer è il più grande. Non è solo una questione di estetica. E nemmeno di statistiche, che piacciono tanto ma lasciano il tempo che trovano. Mi spiego meglio: Borg nei pochi anni che ha giocato ha concentrato più vittorie Slam di Djokovic, Nadal e Federer messi insieme".

He says that statistics alone don't tell you the length of the time period in which those feats were accomplished.

He probably means by this that there are several players equally great in level, but that some of them were able to keep that great level for longer than other greats.

Yes we know that, but that in itself is an achievement, isn't it?

But then he cites Borg in comparison to Djokovic and Federer saying that he won more Grand Slams in a given shorter period of time than them both, which is wrong.

«Facciamo così: sono tutti grandi. Non c’è il più grande. Ognuno domina il suo periodo storico. I paragoni non hanno troppo senso, sono solo fisime giornalistiche: cambiano le racchette, i campi, le palle, il modo di stare in campo e giocare a tennis. Cambia tutto».

okay, here he says that it doesn't make sense to compare achievements from different eras because so many things have changed in between.

I agree with him here wholeheartly, and with this maybe he also wants to say that the possibility to keep that great level for much longer is also dependent on the era (which is possibly true)

But then why does he say that Federer is the greatest????

 

[WeekendTennisHack]

Federer is no way mentally stronger than Djokovic, but he is surely a better tennis player.

 

[LaVie en Rose]

Bhurt fed fans got the mods to nuke Djokovic GOAT thread.
I'm laughing so hard at you guys!!!

 

[albertobra]

I believe Panatta over ate some bucatini amatriciana before this interview that made him lose some basic reasoning, and add some more kgs to gain the porcellone status.

 

[Thetouch]

Obviously Panatta hasn't read his own interview cause he rather makes a case for Borg being GOAT at most. lmao

 

[nolefam_2024]

Obviously Panatta hasn't read his own interview cause he rather makes a case for Borg being GOAT at most. lmao

Because he beat Borg himself. What a selfish man.

 

[RS]

I have no problem with anyone saying Djokovic is the GOAT because of the numbers he has on his side, how he’s played against other top players, his longevity, etc.

But there are sometimes nuances that have to be considered. First of all, two points (really a few cms) and it’s 21 slams each. There’s no huge gulf here right now between the three.

Federer lost too many close matches to keep the numbers based GOAT argument. He could have easily won many more slams but basically lost every close match against Nadal and Djokovic save a few and then lost the Delpo USO match and the Safin AO match to compound things. There are for sure, mitigating circumstances about why he lost those matches (noted below) but in the end he did lose them, and then lost the numbers based GOAT argument.

But there are points in his favor.

—He overcame big disadvantages in technology, i.e., racket size. Had he switched to a bigger racket head earlier, who knows how good he could have been. He was unlucky to come into an era in transition, where serve and volley was going out, faster surfaces were going out, and the advantages one gets from a one-handed backhand or the smaller racket ere almost all gone. There was no way to know this would happen when he was a junior. Nobody with a one-handed BH has been an all time great returner since two-handed BHs came in popular use though JMac at his peak had great returning seasons.
—He overcame having a stroke, i.e., one-handed BH that became pretty much obsolete especially on return though he overcame that late with a bigger racket and playing ultra aggressively with it which is hard to sustain against other ATGs playing a much safer game.
—He had to deal with TWO ATGs both with cases for GOATdom rising very early in his reign (basically from 2005 and for sure from 2008) who both played a more modern game than he did, and had superior racket technology for the times they were playing in. This made a huge impact on Federer’s psyche and the fact that he held him off for so long, longer than anyone else has turned off. Competitors, is a testament to his unparalleled skill and talent.
—He has the most aesthetically pleasing game in an era THAT DOESN'T FAVOR this game; you will not see anyone playing an aesthetically pleasing game win as much as Roger did anytime soon. The two other best players ever play a much different game than he does and every other player that’s going to challenge for best player ever going forward will almost surely play closer to what Djokovic and Nadal play than the way Federer does.
—He has arguably a higher peak than Novak


Despite all these disadvantages, he won what he did WHILE squandering away the most matches in history in which he was the better player. Either way, all the losses from a winning position hurts his GOAT argument, but purely as a player, he has the argument as the best ever.

Fair's but the racket was Fed's choice and if anything in also benefited him a lot because his game was a lot about touch and control off the FH side. I agree he probably could have tried experimenting earlier than 2013 maybe in 08-09 when the tour started closing the gap let alone Nadal but when you won 17 slams with that racket it isn't that easy to change.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Adriano is in my intangibles discord club. Join now if you want 10% off.