D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
Djokovic was neither in his prime nor at his peak when Federer won RG or his USO titles. Djokovic’s peak = 2011 and 2015-2016. His prime = 2011-2016.
Balanced slam distribution is better? Think again
- Thread starter Thinker_145
- Start date
Djokovic was neither in his prime nor at his peak when Federer won RG or his USO titles. Djokovic’s peak = 2011 and 2015-2016. His prime = 2011-2016.
ForehandRF
Legend
Well no, prime Djokovic started before 2011, perhaps even as early as 2007.
ForehandRF
Legend
Djokovic made finals, semifinals at the GS level, won a slam, all that pre 2011.If you consider a player in his prime only when he wins, that is not objective.
D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
He won in 2008 yet I don’t think he was in his prime, just like I don’t think Federer was in his prime in 2003. It’s not about winning, it’s about his tennis level and consistency. Pre-2011 Djokovic was too inconsistent because of his health issues.
2011-2019 Federer won slams and made it to the final several times, does that mean he was still in his prime ?
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal never had a consistent year in his career (mostly due to injuries), does it mean he was never in his prime? Yes, Djokovic already was a very strong player in all surfaces since 2007, and AO 2008 was one of his best ever performances in slams. On clay he was definitely in his prime in 2008-2009.
You can say his peak started in 2011, not his prime.
ForehandRF
Legend
I consider that in 2011-2012 Federer was still in his prime.From physical perspective, he declined in recent years, which is normal imo.
D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
Saying Nadal has never had any "consistent year" in his career is nonsense. 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2017 and 2019 were very consistent years for Nadal. Two slams (Channel Slam) + a gold medal + 2 slam SFs in 2008, 3 slams in 2010, 1 slam + 2 slam finals in 2011, 2 slams in 2013, 2 slams + 1 slam final in 2017, 2 slams + 1 slam final + 1 slam SF in 2019.
Plus Nadal was consistent enough to be untouchable at RG every year. I rule out 2005, 2006 and 2007 because he wasn’t very competitive everywhere. So Nadal’s prime = 2008-2013.
Last edited by a moderator:
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
In all the years you mentioned Nadal had some injuries. Skipped AO in 2013, withdrew from AO during 2010, skipped YEC in 2008...And these were his best years, in other years it was much worse.
Nadal won 11 titles in 2005. I think it's a bit unfair to say he wasn't competitive. He was not competitive in slams outside of RG, that's true.
D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
Still very consistent years for him, he didn’t have to get excellent results/participate at absolutely every event to have a consistent year.
I said very competitive. Slams are very important to determine this.
But I wonder if I really should rule out 2005, 2006 and 2007 because having a "pet slam" is an important criteria when we talk about a player’s prime. It’s even more complicated for players that have a pet slam + a slam final on another surface.
Last edited by a moderator:
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
I think, Thinker (so called) you are the one that needs to think again. Winning 5 titles at any one major is a remarkable feat, even if you are not number 1 outright, that tally will put you in league with the greats.
To accomplish that at ALL 4 OF THEM? Like, what? In the history of the sport only two men have ever won all 4 majors twice, and you're trying to suggest that someone who wins them all five freakin' times wouldn't be the greatest because they're not topping any individual list?
To accomplish that at ALL 4 OF THEM? Like, what? In the history of the sport only two men have ever won all 4 majors twice, and you're trying to suggest that someone who wins them all five freakin' times wouldn't be the greatest because they're not topping any individual list?
D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
Wait, did I really say Nadal’s prime ended in 2010 ? I meant 2013, sorry. His peak ended in 2010.
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
This argument is lame since all slams play almost the same and Ralph beat the "grass" GOAT in his literal yard. He's versatile for this era. 'nuff said.
Indianwells007
Rookie
Not been that versatile past 11 yeas though has he..0 french opens 0 us opens. This is all comparative of course to the other 2 members of Big 3 who in same time period have won all 4 Majors.
ForehandRF
Legend
Cherry picking much ? The last time Nadal won the AO and WImbledon it was in 2009 and 2010 respectively.All this makes him less versatile ? No, but that is valid in Roger's case also.
Djokovic is the only one who won all majors in recent years.
Fiero425
Legend
Nole owns the "2010's!" He obviously won more Majors & Masters; setting records with his consistency and dominance of the decade!
Indianwells007
Rookie
Nadal has won all 4 this decade. Federer hasnt but the point is Federer has not won 2 out of 4 in the Nadal era
ForehandRF
Legend
You are just a fanboy.There is no Nadal era.Nadal was already prime/peak when Fed won RG and the USO.You don't really know what decade means, so check your facts.
ForehandRF
Legend
That's undeniable.Nole owns the "2010's!" He obviously won more Majors & Masters; setting records with his consistency and dominance of the decade!
Indianwells007
Rookie
No need to troll...the Nadal era is over a decade now and federer has never won both FO and USO when Nadal and Djokovic peak. I say its the Nadal era as he has won the most of the big 3 prime v prime. I suppose its really the Nadal djokovic era but i was lazy typing.
ForehandRF
Legend
You are the one who is trolling and lying around here.You better praise your idol rather than bashing his rivals, otherwise all that you're showing is bias and lack of objectivity.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I thought again op and yeah better Slam distribution is still better
Towny
Hall of Fame
Nadal hit his peak in 2008. Federer won RG and the USO after that. It's not Federer's fault that Nadal wasn't able to reach him in the final.
Nadal has not won the AO in more than a decade. He's not won Wimbledon in nearly a decade. You could equally argue that since Djokovic hit his peak (2011), Nadal has been unable to win 2/4 slams. That argument would actually have more validity than arguing that Peak Nadal has somehow prevented Federer from winning the USO given Djokovic has beaten Nadal at the AO and Wimbledon 4 times combined in the last 10 years whereas Nadal and Federer have NEVER met at the USO.
Indianwells007
Rookie
Federer has failed to meet Nadal repeatedly at USO. And no, federer won USO 2008 due to Nadal being spent after FO W Olympics treble (in of itself arguably greatest ever achievement in tennis) so getting Murray in final rather than Nadal and FO 2009 Nadal was injured and didnt play again until USO .
Conversely Nadal and Djokovic have won all 4 majors when other 2 of big 3 were peak.
Indianwells007
Rookie
Lying ? Ive stated reality. Federer has not won FO or USO in the peak years of Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal and Djokovic have won all 4 during peak of the other 2 of Big 3. How can u even argue that?
ForehandRF
Legend
Since Djokovic entered his peak in 2011, Nadal didn't win either Wimbledon or the AO.See, I can play this foolish game too.Get rid of those biased glasses.
Indianwells007
Rookie
Djokovic won AO 2008 straight setting Federer along the way. His peak started right there. Dont confuse peak with form.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
..
Last edited:
van_Loederen
Professional
what has it to do with Slam count and this thread?
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
If you're discussing GOAT then WTF should be factored in.
These players are aiming to win as many grand slam titles as possible, not stay as even as possible. So this thread is correct.
If a less balanced slam distribution is the one that results in the most slam titles, then so be it. I guess specialization may actually be greater. So if Djokovic and Federer both end up winning 40-45% of their slams at their favorite, but Nadal exceeds them both, then his strategy was actually the better one...
Considering they've all won a career GS, and Nadal is easily the most likely of all three to win a double career GS, I don't see how you can hold versatility against him at this point, especially after winning most of the last few US Opens and finishing world no. 1 more times in his 30s than Federer did.
If a less balanced slam distribution is the one that results in the most slam titles, then so be it. I guess specialization may actually be greater. So if Djokovic and Federer both end up winning 40-45% of their slams at their favorite, but Nadal exceeds them both, then his strategy was actually the better one...
Considering they've all won a career GS, and Nadal is easily the most likely of all three to win a double career GS, I don't see how you can hold versatility against him at this point, especially after winning most of the last few US Opens and finishing world no. 1 more times in his 30s than Federer did.
aman92
Legend
Yeah neither has more than 1 slam on clay... Nadal is the only one with multiple slams on all surfaces
When people say tennis Goat it is built in that it's across all surfaces, aka overall Goat.
Otherwise it is prefaced with the surface the player is Goat of, like Clay Goat.
A true Goat of tennis has mastered all playing fields like Federer and Djokovic.
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
Also the only one with 12 of their 19 slams at one tournament.
Since 2005, Nadal has failed at grand slams off clay 85% of the time.
stingstang
Professional
Yes 20 years ago. You would have had to master very different skills to win on grass v clay or even slow hard. Almost irrelevant now.
MambiPambi
New User
Yes less relevant, but winning 4 different slams is still marginally more versatile than 4 identical ones.
Similar threads
