Big 3 Eras: Rafa had it the hardest, Fed & Djoker had separate eras, Rafa shared those eras

[The Blond Blur]

nole, rafa and muzza are all born in one year period.

rafa played most matches vs nole (60; 40+WO vs fed, 24 vs muzza, 22 vs wawa)
fed played most matches vs nole (50+WO; 40+WO vs rafa, 25 vs muzza, 26+WO vs wawa)
muzza played most matches vs nole (36; 25 vs fed, 24 vs rafa)
wawa played most matches vs nole (27; 26+WO vs fed, 22 vs rafa)

nole is the player who played most matches vs top10 (373; fed 347, rafa 290)
nole is the player who won most matches vs top10 (258; fed 224, rafa 186)
nole has much higher W% vs top10 than fed and rafa (is all time 2nd behind borg, 69,2%; fed 64,6%, rafa 63,9%)

nole played 173 matches vs big4 + wawa
rafa played 146 matches vs big4 + wawa
fed played 141 matches vs big4 + wawa

so who had it toughest?

They were born within a year of each other, yet they didn’t hit their prime/or peak around the same time. Case in point, RAFA is only 11 months older than Joker, yet he had 9 schlems and had completed the golden CYGS before Joker had even won his 2nd schlem. If Joker is only 11 months younger, then why did it take him so long to hit his peak? It’s because different individuals are going to develop physically at different times.

Just because Joker got to rack up a ton of wins vs post prime Fedal and a top 10 full of #LostGen and #NextGen players doesn’t mean he had it the hardest. He’s also been by far the most fortunate when it comes to injuries. So to answer your question, I think RAFA had it the toughest out of the Big 3 and I always will. Imo his prime overlapped the most with 2 other GOAT candidates. 2007-2013 was imo the toughest period in the Big 3 Era and he the best results out of the 3.

You can disagree all you want, but you’re not going to change my mind.

 

[Mustard]

Looking back at rg 2020 again, Rafa smoked Djokovic. Both were playing well. But the court was slow in mid September.

It was 11 October 2020 when Nadal beat Djokovic in that French Open final

 

[Neptune]

Yeah, when organizers rig the draws like that, it’s no wonder it’s the 'toughest' for Rafa.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

They were born within a year of each other, yet they didn’t hit their prime/or peak around the same time. Case in point, RAFA is only 11 months older than Joker, yet he had 9 schlems and had completed the golden CYGS before Joker had even won his 2nd schlem. If Joker is only 11 months younger, then why did it take him so long to hit his peak? It’s because different individuals are going to develop physically at different times.

Just because Joker got to rack up a ton of wins vs post prime Fedal and a top 10 full of #LostGen and #NextGen players doesn’t mean he had it the hardest. He’s also been by far the most fortunate when it comes to injuries. So to answer your question, I think RAFA had it the toughest out of the Big 3 and I always will. Imo his prime overlapped the most with 2 other GOAT candidates. 2007-2013 was imo the toughest period in the Big 3 Era and he the best results out of the 3.

You can disagree all you want, but you’re not going to change my mind.

Good points.

However, Djokovic did not have the benefit of being from Spain or Switzerland with well off parents. Federer and Nadal benefitted from not being in a country bombed to oblivion when they were young. Djokovic's first coach who said he would be No. 1 when he was young told Djokovic when he achieved No. 1 that it had come two years late because of his lack of money and other issues out of his control.

Djokovic was also given the chance to become a British citizen with all its financial benefits and support for his tennis, but he declined that because he loved his country and saw that he could benefit it by staying Serbian.

I am not saying that Nadal was not great at a young age. He was. But Djokovic likely would have achieved more if not from Serbia. Context is important. And I say this as an American.

 

[GoatNo1]

Good points.

However, Djokovic did not have the benefit of being from Spain or Switzerland with well off parents. Federer and Nadal benefitted from not being in a country bombed to oblivion when they were young. Djokovic's first coach who said he would be No. 1 when he was young told Djokovic when he achieved No. 1 that it had come two years late because of his lack of money and other issues out of his control.

Djokovic was also given the chance to become a British citizen with all its financial benefits and support for his tennis, but he declined that because he loved his country and saw that he could benefit it by staying Serbian.

I am not saying that Nadal was not great at a young age. He was. But Djokovic likely would have achieved more if not from Serbia. Context is important. And I say this as an American.

seles, another great player and GOAT contender coming from serbia, was stabbed. then she lost her ranking. and when she become american she got automatically her no1 ranking back. she got the same point as graf. if nole was from some big western countrie i don't think he would be DQ, deported or banned. i dont think that weeks would be frozen if fed was about to break a rekord (especially if some player from the east had it). i dont think W would be taken its point in 22 without protection of previously points if nole was not both champion from 21 and favorit for 22. and i dont think that he would have such treatment in west media if he was not serbian (or russian for ex). he would be undisputed GOAT not just in tennis but in all sports if he was american.

 

[GoatNo1]

Yeah, when organizers rig the draws like that, it’s no wonder it’s the 'toughest' for Rafa.

h2h out of clay with the end of 2011 (upp to 2011):

nole always with fed, 12 out of 12 times:
rafa-nole: 7-11 (7-7)
fed-nole: 11-9 (11-5)

muzza never with fed, 12 out of 12 times (even when he was not top4 seeded):
rafa-muzza: 9-5 (7-4)
fed-muzza: 6-8 (6-8)

denko never with rafa at HC slams, 0 out of 6 times:
rafa-denko on HC: 1-6 (1-5)

 

[MichaelNadal]

They were born within a year of each other, yet they didn’t hit their prime/or peak around the same time. Case in point, RAFA is only 11 months older than Joker, yet he had 9 schlems and had completed the golden CYGS before Joker had even won his 2nd schlem. If Joker is only 11 months younger, then why did it take him so long to hit his peak? It’s because different individuals are going to develop physically at different times.

Just because Joker got to rack up a ton of wins vs post prime Fedal and a top 10 full of #LostGen and #NextGen players doesn’t mean he had it the hardest. He’s also been by far the most fortunate when it comes to injuries. So to answer your question, I think RAFA had it the toughest out of the Big 3 and I always will. Imo his prime overlapped the most with 2 other GOAT candidates. 2007-2013 was imo the toughest period in the Big 3 Era and he the best results out of the 3.

You can disagree all you want, but you’re not going to change my mind.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Good points.

However, Djokovic did not have the benefit of being from Spain or Switzerland with well off parents. Federer and Nadal benefitted from not being in a country bombed to oblivion when they were young. Djokovic's first coach who said he would be No. 1 when he was young told Djokovic when he achieved No. 1 that it had come two years late because of his lack of money and other issues out of his control.

Djokovic was also given the chance to become a British citizen with all its financial benefits and support for his tennis, but he declined that because he loved his country and saw that he could benefit it by staying Serbian.

I am not saying that Nadal was not great at a young age. He was. But Djokovic likely would have achieved more if not from Serbia. Context is important. And I say this as an American.

Huh? His parents owned a restaurant and had him start playing tennis at the age of 4. They were sending him to tennis camps as early as the age of 6. He ended up traveling to Germany and developing in an academy there for 4 years. He was even personally trained by Niki Pilić (former pro player) while he was there. He also got to train at various academies in the U.S. and Italy.

There’s literally zero evidence to suggest that he became #1 2 years later and he should have based on his upbringing. If anything, the experiments he made to his game and equipment played the biggest role as well as how tough the competition was.

 

[GoatNo1]

Huh? His parents owned a restaurant and had him start playing tennis at the age of 4. They were sending him to tennis camps as early as the age of 6. He ended up traveling to Germany and developing in an academy there for 4 years. He was even personally trained by Niki Pilić (former pro player) while he was there. He also got to train at various academies in the U.S. and Italy.

There’s literally zero evidence to suggest that he became #1 2 years later and he should have based on his upbringing. If anything, the experiments he made to his game and equipment played the biggest role as well as how tough the competition was.

in serbia he trained in the empty swimming pool while bombs was falling. he, his 2 brothers and his parents lived in 70 M^2. his dad borrow money from money sharks to finance his tennis, risking everything.

 

[The Blond Blur]

in serbia he trained in the empty swimming pool while bombs was falling. he, his 2 brothers and his parents lived in 70 M^2. his dad borrow money from money sharks to finance his tennis, risking everything.

Did he have to go through a very tough and scary time briefly? Yes. Was that the entirety of his childhood or even the vast majority of his upbringing? No. The guy grew up near a ski resort.

 

[Jonas78]

They were born within a year of each other, yet they didn’t hit their prime/or peak around the same time. Case in point, RAFA is only 11 months older than Joker, yet he had 9 schlems and had completed the golden CYGS before Joker had even won his 2nd schlem. If Joker is only 11 months younger, then why did it take him so long to hit his peak? It’s because different individuals are going to develop physically at different times.

Just because Joker got to rack up a ton of wins vs post prime Fedal and a top 10 full of #LostGen and #NextGen players doesn’t mean he had it the hardest. He’s also been by far the most fortunate when it comes to injuries. So to answer your question, I think RAFA had it the toughest out of the Big 3 and I always will. Imo his prime overlapped the most with 2 other GOAT candidates. 2007-2013 was imo the toughest period in the Big 3 Era and he the best results out of the 3.

You can disagree all you want, but you’re not going to change my mind.

I can agree he had it the toughest, but Federer only stopped him twice in slams before 2017. Some people make it sound like he would win a bunch of more slams in his prime without Fed, when Federer in fact didnt stop him once between W2007 and AO2017.

Djokovic was the big robber of slams, of both Federer & Nadal.

 

[The Blond Blur]

I can agree he had it the toughest, but Federer only stopped him twice in slams before 2017. Some people make it sound like he would win a bunch of more slams in his prime without Fed, when Federer in fact didnt stop him once between 2007 and 2017.

2 more Wimbys changes the way a lot of people look at him as far as his GC record goes. His biggest detractors harp on his “clay skewed” numbers all the time. Had he beaten a much better version of Fed even one more time he ties the record for channel slams with Borg. Had he won both other times he lost he all of a sudden has the outright record. Any of 06-08 were far better versions of Fed at Wimby than any version of Fed Joker got to play there. There was also the elusive Miami title that Fed denied him in 05 back when it was BO5 and the umpire made a terrible overrule that completely changed the momentum of the match.

 

[Martin J]

Good points.

However, Djokovic did not have the benefit of being from Spain or Switzerland with well off parents. Federer and Nadal benefitted from not being in a country bombed to oblivion when they were young. Djokovic's first coach who said he would be No. 1 when he was young told Djokovic when he achieved No. 1 that it had come two years late because of his lack of money and other issues out of his control.

Djokovic was also given the chance to become a British citizen with all its financial benefits and support for his tennis, but he declined that because he loved his country and saw that he could benefit it by staying Serbian.

I am not saying that Nadal was not great at a young age. He was. But Djokovic likely would have achieved more if not from Serbia. Context is important. And I say this as an American.

You are right about the disadvantages of being born in Serbia (Yugoslavia back then) as you can't compare the quality of tennis facilities and financial support the local clubs or young talents receive from the national tennis association, so in that sense people born in USA, Switzerland, Spain etc were "luckier".

On the other hand, he was very lucky to be noticed by Jelena Gencic (by her own testimony, she saw a little boy sitting and watching her coaching other kids, so she was curious and asked him if he wants to join, which he was thrilled to accept) and basically started to be coached by the Yugoslav Nick Bollettieri for juniors, by far the best tennis coach for your players in the country, who discovered and coached many talents (Seles, Ivanisevic, Majoli). The price his parents had to pay was probably very symbolic and he immediately received a high quality treatment. Furthermore, Jelena helped him enormously to develop his later career by convincing Pilic to accept him to his academy.

How many players (Easterners or Westerners) had to luxury to get by far the best junior coach in the country, who trained them literally pro bono? Not many. So in that sense, he was lucky.

By the way, I don't know how you came up with the two years latency, but you are probably right lol. Gencic used the very same number while talking about his inability to travel and play tournaments, due to financial reasons, when he was 17, so it definitely slowed him career down a bit.

Anyway, nothing is black and white and the same goes with the Djokovic story.

 

[Jonas78]

2 more Wimbys changes the way a lot of people look at him as far as his GC record goes. His biggest detractors harp on his “clay skewed” numbers all the time. Had he beaten a much better version of Fed even one more time he ties the record for channel slams with Borg. Had he won both other times he lost he all of a sudden has the outright record. Any of 06-08 were far better versions of Fed at Wimby than any version of Fed Joker got to play there. There was also the elusive Miami title that Fed denied him in 05 back when it was BO5 and the umpire made a terrible overrule that completely changed the momentum of the match.

Sure, I just dont fully see the "poor Rafa was sandwiched in between Fed & Djoker" when it was mainly Rafa whipping Feds a1s, at least pre 2017. Without looking into it, im pretty sure Federer is the one that clearly lost most slams to the other Big3. How many slams Rafa denied him? 4-5 FOs, 1W, 2-3 AOs? Besides - how long stretch did Federer get without the other two? He peaked in 2004 and Rafa won FO in 2005

 

[The Blond Blur]

Sure, I just dont fully see the "poor Rafa was sandwiched in between Fed & Djoker" when it was mainly Rafa whipping Feds a1s, at least pre 2017. Without looking into it, im pretty sure Federer is the one that clearly lost most slams to the other Big3.

And that’s where we are going to have to agree to disagree. From my point of view, Fed didn’t have another ATG level player to duke it out with in his generation. They were a good group of players (certainly better than the like of the #LostGen and #NextGen players), but they were no world beaters. If anything, he should have broken out sooner than he did to start collecting top tier titles. As far as RAFA goes, his career is a bit odd in that he peaked earlier than most players so he was challenging Fed as the 2nd best player in the world as young as the age of 18. And due to his many injuries his best results on grass came at a much younger age when Fed happened to still be in his peak/prime.

Then when RAFA started making adjustments to his game to compensate for his many injuries he started getting better and more consistent results on HC…Only to have the greatest HC player (and a guy who had a matchup advantage over him to boot) come after him. To me it’s a pretty big deal when you have to deal with either the best of 2nd best GC player during your own GC peak/prime and then have to deal with the best HC player during your own HC peak/prime.

 

[Jonas78]

And that’s where we are going to have to agree to disagree. From my point of view, Fed didn’t have another ATG level player to duke it out with in his generation. They were a good group of players (certainly better than the like of the #LostGen and #NextGen players), but they were no world beaters. If anything, he should have broken out sooner than he did to start collecting top tier titles. As far as RAFA goes, his career is a bit odd in that he peaked earlier than most players so he was challenging Fed as the 2nd best player in the world as young as the age of 18. And due to his many injuries his best results on grass came at a much younger age when Fed happened to still be in his peak/prime.

Then when RAFA started making adjustments to his game to compensate for his many injuries he started getting better and more consistent results on HC…Only to have the greatest HC player (and a guy who had a matchup advantage over him to boot) come after him. To me it’s a pretty big deal when you have to deal with either the best of 2nd best GC player during your own GC peak/prime and then have to deal with the best HC player during your own HC peak/prime.

I agree 100% that Rafa was extremely unlucky with Djoker rising to the top in 2011, no doubt, but so was Roger.

OP is making a point that Rafa had to struggle with Fed 05-10 and then Djokovic. Well that also means Federer had to deal with Rafa from 05-10 and then Djoker. Rafa won his first slam in 05 and was already denying Fed slams in 06.

 

[GoatNo1]

I can agree he had it the toughest, but Federer only stopped him twice in slams before 2017. Some people make it sound like he would win a bunch of more slams in his prime without Fed, when Federer in fact didnt stop him once between W2007 and AO2017.

Djokovic was the big robber of slams, of both Federer & Nadal.

yes, before 2011 rafa lost only 2 slam matches to fed, both at W. during same time nole lost 4 matches to fed and 5 to rafa. since AO 2011 rafa lost 7 and fed 9 GS matches to nole. rafa lost 2 to fed, as many as before 2011. since AO11 nole lost 6 matches to rafa (5 being at RG) and 2 to fed (as many as rafa).

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Djokovic won 14 of his last 17 slams without facing Nadal. Guy had a free pass since 2015.

How many slams did Federer win beating Nadal?

 

[The Blond Blur]

I agree 100% that Rafa was extremely unlucky with Djoker rising to the top in 2011, no doubt, but so was Roger.

OP is making a point that Rafa had to struggle with Fed 05-10 and then Djokovic. Well that also means Federer had to deal with Rafa from 05-10 and then Djoker. Rafa won his first slam in 05 and was already denying Fed slams in 06.

But by most Fed fan accounts he was already past his prime by the time Joker had hit his peak in 2011. He had least had a couple years in his prime where he didn’t have anyone outside of clay to challenge him because there simpler were no ATG level players. RAFA is the only guy you can point to who had to deal with another GOAT candidate in their peak/prime while he was in his own peak/prime. The only year he didn’t have another GOAT candidate in their peak/prime while he was in his was 2010.

 

[mike danny]

I can agree he had it the toughest, but Federer only stopped him twice in slams before 2017. Some people make it sound like he would win a bunch of more slams in his prime without Fed, when Federer in fact didnt stop him once between W2007 and AO2017.

Djokovic was the big robber of slams, of both Federer & Nadal.

In fairness, during that same period, Djokovic only stopped Nadal one more time than Fed.

 

[Jonas78]

In fairness, during that same period, Djokovic only stopped Nadal one more time than Fed.

Isnt it 4? W11, USO11, AO12, FO15?

Either way, my main point is that i dont know if 2 losses to Federer from 2005 to 2017 can be used as an argument that he was so extremely unlucky.

I mean, Stan & Murray did the same.

You could of course make a point that 04-07 was easier than 08-13 because of the field in general, but I wont start that one over again lol.

 

[mike danny]

But by most Fed fan accounts he was already past his prime by the time Joker had hit his peak in 2011. He had least had a couple years in his prime where he didn’t have anyone outside of clay to challenge him because there simpler were no ATG level players. RAFA is the only guy you can point to who had to deal with another GOAT candidate in their peak/prime while he was in his own peak/prime. The only year he didn’t have another GOAT candidate in their peak/prime while he was in his was 2010.

Yes, but Fed played for 9 more years after 2010 and we know how many slams he failed to win because of Djoker.

If anything, it was better for Rafa to be in his prime when Djoker showed up.

 

[Mustard]

Djokovic was also given the chance to become a British citizen with all its financial benefits and support for his tennis, but he declined that because he loved his country and saw that he could benefit it by staying Serbian.

Djokovic had his residence in Monte Carlo for years. It's hard to play the patriotic card when you are living in Monaco or without explaining your reasons for residing there.

I remember Muster said that one of the reasons why he moved to Monte Carlo in 1994 because he thought the Austrian government was wasting taxpayers money on "vanity projects", while also mentioning the zero income tax and the lovely tennis courts in Monaco.

 

[mike danny]

Isnt it 4? W11, USO11, AO12, FO15?

Either way, my main point is that i dont know if 2 losses to Federer from 2005 to 2017 can be used as an argument that he was so extremely unlucky.

I mean, Stan & Murray did the same.

FO 2015 is irrelevant in this context as Fed didn't get a Rafa that poor in his best years.

 

[Jonas78]

FO 2015 is irrelevant in this context as Fed didn't get a Rafa that poor in his best years.

Sure, but Rafa could still win it without Djoker no?

 

[Mustard]

Sure, but Rafa could still win it without Djoker no?

Perhaps he might have, but he might have lost to Murray or Wawrinka as well, either tamely or chaotically. 2015 Nadal was like that.

 

[Jonas78]

Perhaps he might have, but he might have lost to Murray or Wawrinka as well, either tamely or chaotically. 2015 Nadal was like that.

Maybe Murray, but its a big maybe. Rafa never lost to Stan on clay, I dont see it.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Yes, but Fed played for 9 more years after 2010 and we know how many slams he failed to win because of Djoker.

If anything, it was better for Rafa to be in his prime when Djoker showed up.

Agree to disagree. If anything this shows me that it was the lack of another ATG level player coming after Joker that enabled so many Fed vs Joker showdowns (particularly in 2015 and at Wimby).

I just can’t see (and won’t concede) that it was better to be in RAFA’s situation where his prime overlapped the most with other GOAT candidates’ primes. That and he had by far and away the most injuries to overcome.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Sure, but Rafa could still win it without Djoker no?

No. Stan or Murray would have beaten him in the kind of form he was in.

Maybe Murray, but it’s a big maybe. Rafa never lost to Stan on clay, I dont see it.

Stan beat him right before RG in Rome in straight sets…

 

[Jonas78]

No. Stan or Murray would have beaten him in the kind of form he was in.

Stan beat him right before RG in Rome in straight sets…

Dam1 forgot about that one... But thats the only time on clay no?

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Ned's peak was epic. Wins in slams against both Novak and Roger on grass AND hard. By comparison the Rafa's versions Novak won against at the FO were much weaker.
It's also quite puzzling to see some people now using the Herculean feat of winning FOURTEEN RG trophies as an argument against his legacy.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Dam1 forgot about that one... But thats the only time on clay no?

It has a lot more weight behind it than any other potential win on clay though since it happened right before RG while RAFA was having the worst year of his career since becoming a GS champion, no?

 

[socallefty]

Rafa had it hardest - because he played tennis from 15-20 feet behind the baseline. It doesn’t work on all courts and low bounces.

 

[Jonas78]

It has a lot more weight behind it than any other potential win on clay though since it happened right before RG while RAFA was having the worst year of his career since becoming a GS champion, no?

Sure he might lose that one, but I think he also could win it without Djoker.

 

[GoatNo1]

rafa has not shared feds or noles eras but was 2nd best player in all 3. and as always 2nd player without his own era he is rightfully 3rd greatest in history. and it is good considering that fed had maybe the greatest era and nole had 2 as great eras as the undisputed GOAT.

 

[Aabye5]

rafa has not shared feds or noles eras but was 2nd best player in all 3. and as always 2nd player without his own era he is rightfully 3rd greatest in history. and it is good considering that fed had maybe the greatest era and nole had 2 a great eras as the undisputed GOAT.

He's probably the 2nd best player of all time

 

[Aabye5]

Rafa had it hardest - because he played tennis from 15-20 feet behind the baseline. It doesn’t work on all courts and low bounces.

But neither does Fed's style on clay. In fact, Rafa's style is more effective on hard courts than Fed's was on clay.

 

[socallefty]

But neither does Fed's style on clay. In fact, Rafa's style is more effective on hard courts than Fed's was on clay.

I guess that‘s why Federer finished behind Nadal in Slams and Masters.

 

[nolefam_2024]

He's probably the 2nd best player of all time

When you say All time, do you worry about pre open era AT ALL or just open era.


Because Nadal never had a year like Fedkovic and I have him narrowly ahead of Fed but I can easily see Fed ahead as well.
But there is Rod Laver as well.

8 Year end number 1
19 slams (pro + amateur + open)
Highest peak in tennis
Slams were not the only thing that mattered in his days so five Davis cups as well.

I would have Rod and Nole at 1 and 2. Tennis abstract Jeff Sackman says the same.

 

[SonnyT]

You can say Nadal had it the toughest because he's been injured since birth, but hey he could choose not to play tennis if he wanted to.

Nadal failed to win a title this year on his favourite surface clay, losing to Nuno Borges in the final.

Nole had to play against the current French Open champion, on his least favourite surface clay, in order to win Olympics Gold at Roland Garros. Not only that, he also beat Nadal on the way.

Nole has the highest level wins and toughest opponents. Most of his titles are big titles and not Mickey mouse titles. He's won all the available Masters Titles twice while Nadal and Federer haven't won all the available Masters Titles.


Nole has the most wins against Big 3, Top 5 and Top 10 players compared to Nadal and Federer.

	Nole	Nadal	Federer
Big 3 wins	58	53	39
Top 5 wins	123	93	104
Top 10 wins	259	186	224

Nadal had it the easiest. He won 2/3 of his slams on clay, faced most of his toughest matches on clay. So what did he want? For the RG director to present him the Three Musketeers award on bent knees?

Federer won most of his slams in the **** easy 00's. He won only 4 slams in the much tougher 10's!

Djokovic won 17 of first 19 slams beating Federer, Nadal and/or Murray. In the other 2, he beat JMdP and Medvedev. See the above table to see how hard Djokovic's route has been!

 

[The Blond Blur]

Sure he might lose that one, but I think he also could win it without Djoker.

I think it’s more than likely he would have lost either Stan or Murray even if Joker wasn’t in the picture. He already had lost to both of them in Madrid and Rome beforehand. He had also lost to Fognini twice on clay in Rio and Barca, and he didn’t have a single title heading into RG that year. He also struggled with Jack Sock of all players the round before he faced off vs Joker. The guy was just straight up bad that year.

 

[messiahrobins]

Pretty basic.

Fed won 16 (80%) of his slams before Djoker even won 2 (8%) of his slams.

Fed had 285 weeks at number one (237 straight) before Djoker had a single week at number one.

Fed beat Sampras at WC before Sampras won his last slam. Beat Agassi in a slam final. Djoker played Carlos the Shepherd in slam finals.

Clearly Fed had his prime/peak up till 2010. Djoker did have a longer peak/prime starting in 2011-2023.

Rafa, unfortunately, had to deal with both during their peaks/primes. Dealt with Fed from 05-10 and Djoker from thereafter. Rafa had peak Fed in the beginning and peak Djoker in the end.

Just sayin.

So you are saying Nadal is GOAT?

 

[messiahrobins]

Oh well. That’s how the cookie crumbled. Call it luck, call it good timing, whatever. Nadal had his chances to win the slam race and he didn’t take them. It’s not as if Djokovic had it easy either.

Nadal got the slam record. Nobody took it off him, he effectively retired holding it. Thats why RG2022 was so important as it was where Nadal and Djokovic faced off. Its also why Alcaraz leading Djokovic in slam finals 2-0 might be very relevant a decade from now. Djokovic will be long gone of course but when comparisons are made between him and Alcaraz as to who was greater i'll bet the two W finals will be referenced.

 

[messiahrobins]

A year older makes no difference. Same era.

Nadal dominated his generational era for 17 straight years. Federer was an earlier era being 5 years older.

 

[vokazu]

So you are saying Nadal is GOAT?

He's saying Nadal is GOAT of excuses lol.

 

[messiahrobins]

He's saying Nadal is GOAT of excuses lol.

I didnt see the word excuses in his post?

 

[SonnyT]

They were born within a year of each other, yet they didn’t hit their prime/or peak around the same time. Case in point, RAFA is only 11 months older than Joker, yet he had 9 schlems and had completed the golden CYGS before Joker had even won his 2nd schlem. If Joker is only 11 months younger, then why did it take him so long to hit his peak? It’s because different individuals are going to develop physically at different times.

Just because Joker got to rack up a ton of wins vs post prime Fedal and a top 10 full of #LostGen and #NextGen players doesn’t mean he had it the hardest. He’s also been by far the most fortunate when it comes to injuries. So to answer your question, I think RAFA had it the toughest out of the Big 3 and I always will. Imo his prime overlapped the most with 2 other GOAT candidates. 2007-2013 was imo the toughest period in the Big 3 Era and he the best results out of the 3.

You can disagree all you want, but you’re not going to change my mind.

Nole, Roger and Andy homed in on HC/grass. Whether by luck or talent, Nole outlasted Roger and had a lot more of everything than Andy.

Without Nole, Rafa would've outlasted Roger and took over the HC/grass. As it was, Rafa kind of went away, to be the ultimate clay master.

So I say it was Nole who had the toughest and the most successful time of the three. I was unfortunate not to see the prime days of Nole vs Carlos, the two most clutch and most successful talents ever.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Nole, Roger and Andy homed in on HC/grass. Whether by luck or talent, Nole outlasted Roger and had a lot more of everything than Andy.

Without Nole, Rafa would've outlasted Roger and took over the HC/grass. As it was, Rafa kind of went away, to be the ultimate clay master.

So I say it was Nole who had the toughest and the most successful time of the three. I was unfortunate not to see the prime days of Nole vs Carlos, the two most clutch and most successful talents ever.

Couldn’t disagree with you more. If anything, Joker had it the easiest since it took well over a decade for the next ATG level player to come after him.

 

[socallefty]

I am not an expert at judging eras because I can never tell if a player wins a lot because he is too good or because his opposition is weaker. With the eye test when I attend pro tournaments, it seems like the players hit/serve bigger with more spin and are faster in their movement - so it is hard for me to say ever that the modern game is worser than past decades as my eyes say otherwise.

I feel like Nadal and Federer had big weaknesses that were exploited. Nadal won with his heavy topspin and it was neutralized by low bouncing surfaces - also his serve was nowhere close to ATG server level. Federer had a 1HBH that could be exploited by heavy topspin on high bouncing surfaces and his return career ranking is outside the top 100 according to ATP stats published on their website - 1HBHs fare poorly in return stats.

In contrast Djokovic did not have big weaknesses that could be exploited on any surface. He also is more fanatical about taking care of his body into his middle age. So to me it is not a surprise that he won the most. Sometimes the simple answer is the accurate one - he always seemed like the best player when you watched him at tournaments between 2011-2023 (except 2017-1H2018) and therefore he won the most.

 

[Aabye5]

I agree 100% that Rafa was extremely unlucky with Djoker rising to the top in 2011, no doubt, but so was Roger.

OP is making a point that Rafa had to struggle with Fed 05-10 and then Djokovic. Well that also means Federer had to deal with Rafa from 05-10 and then Djoker. Rafa won his first slam in 05 and was already denying Fed slams in 06.

It's true, but imagine if Rafa had had the chance to play his first Wimbledon finals against someone other than Roger.