"Deadlocked at 20 for now," says Federer

[Sunny014]

I don’t think he would beat peak Djokovic at the AO though. Fed and Nadal couldn’t do it. I agree that if they played numerous matches on HC Safin would definitely get a win. I’m not hating or even underrating Safin he was a top player and if he peaked could beat anyone. One of my favourite players too watch over the years.
The problem he would have with peak Djokovic on HC is that Safin when not playing his best would struggle against Djokovic, Nadal type of player

If Sampras, Agassi, Federer could all lose to Safin at AO then even Novak will, just because Nadal, Murray and others could not bear Novak there doesn't mean anything, Federer's case his best years were over before Novak's began, that's why, 2007 Federer can beat 2016 Novak or 2014 or even 2015 one, even 2011 version of Novak can lose to 2007 Fed, had they been of same age then Novak would have half of his slams at AO to Fed...

 

[Sunny014]

Fun Fact : Safin has beaten Fed, Sampras, Agassi and Novak at AO, only person to beat all at the same Slam.....

All evidence suggests that at his best he is an ATG on hard courts, a goat level candidate ....

 

[D.Nalby12]

Yup.

Agassi did not play in the Australian Open until he was nearly 25 years old. For comparison he played his 1st USO at age 16, FO and W at age 17. That's 8 years of not playing the AO at the start of his career.

He also skipped 3 Wimbledons because of the dress code.

Skipping slam due to dress code? Never heard before!

 

[mike danny]

It can happen but it is not going to be easy. I do agree with him saying it is a bit easier to dominate across all surfaces, but I think he is selling himself and the other two short here. It's easier but not easy because if it was, the newer generation wouldn't struggle on grass so much, with most having their best results on hardcourt. The thing about the big 3 is they completely dominated and built a fortress. You might could beat 1 of them or maybe 2, but you could not beat 3 in a Slam so by the time you reached the 2nd or 3rd hurdle, it was over. You were finished. This allowed them to build up an aura as well as made it hard for anyone to break through. A newer dominant champion is going to be the lone lion and won't have that fortress, and will have to hold the field off by himself. That's why it's going to be hard. Only way I see someone reaching 20 again is if it's a duo or trio who dominate simultaneously again. 20 Slams in a BO5 is incredibly difficult and is a lot of Slams.

Many times they failed at the first hurdle, no I don't think that part is true.

 

[mike danny]

IMO, no one in this era at least will win 10+ slams. I don't think it will happen in our lifetime either.

 

[Antonio Puente]

I don't see another 20 happening any time soon, not within the next few decades.

 

[Jonesy]

So its just easy to win slams these days? Sounds like something TTW posters would say. Slams for everybody! Tsitsipas will win 60 of those freebies! Too much vacation definitely is not doing any good for Fed mental health.

 

[Keystoner]

What better than a conspiracy theory to draw traffic to - pick any random - Internet forum?

Anyway, I don't see how any unbiased, objective, rational evaluation would not conclude with a high probability that Djokovic will achieve ≥ 21.

Oh yeah, he may get injured and finish with 20 too.

 

[beard]

It can happen but it is not going to be easy. I do agree with him saying it is a bit easier to dominate across all surfaces, but I think he is selling himself and the other two short here. It's easier but not easy because if it was, the newer generation wouldn't struggle on grass so much, with most having their best results on hardcourt. The thing about the big 3 is they completely dominated and built a fortress. You might could beat 1 of them or maybe 2, but you could not beat 3 in a Slam so by the time you reached the 2nd or 3rd hurdle, it was over. You were finished. This allowed them to build up an aura as well as made it hard for anyone to break through. A newer dominant champion is going to be the lone lion and won't have that fortress, and will have to hold the field off by himself. That's why it's going to be hard. Only way I see someone reaching 20 again is if it's a duo or trio who dominate simultaneously again. 20 Slams in a BO5 is incredibly difficult and is a lot of Slams.

Disagree... So if there's weren't Rafole fortress Fed would have less slams? I think opposite, it there is one new big three quality lion it would be easier for him to brake slam record...

 

[ffw2]

See Safin is one of them players that peaks it is incredibly hard to stop but his base level is very hit and miss. He also liked to party and while that might of worked in the 80’s he was playing at a time when sports science was improving and top athletes where getting fitter.

See I was listening to Paul Merson (Arsenal ex player) and in the 90’s they went for drinks after games and some players smoked. This is unheard of these days as you will be finished in late 20’s max.
See the decline age in football 30 years ago was considered 28/29 now a days it’s closer to 32 with players being healthier and having unlimited resources.

The colossal leap forward in sports science is a huge topic.

Would love to see it get treatment here on Main Street as the impacts on the trajectory of this game are very real.

 

[NoleFam]

Disagree... So if there's weren't Rafole fortress Fed would have less slams? I think opposite, it there is one new big three quality lion it would be easier for him to brake slam record...

Federer won 10 or 11 of his Slams before they were the top 3 but that's approximately half of 20. He had the perfect scenario to reel off so many Slams in a short amount of time but eventually the field caught up. That's why I don't see a lone dominant champ getting to 20. He's going to be the hunted with so many coming at him and trying to take him down. When it's 2 or 3 dominant ones, it's hard to take all 3 of them down. Plus, they had all the surfaces on lockdown. Nadal is a clay god who was almost impossible to stop at RG. Federer is the most dominant on grass and then when he fell off Nadal, Djokovic and Murray picked up the slack, with Djokovic being 2nd to Federer. Djokovic is the all time best at AO and took over from Federer after his dominant years, with Federer picking up the slack when he fell off for a bit. This left only the USO, where they weren't as dominant, but still won lots of those as well. That was really the only Slam they left on the table. It was the perfect storm where they built their own impenetrable wall to completely own the game. That will be hard to duplicate again.

 

[ffw2]

That's why I don't see a lone dominant champ getting to 20. He's going to be the hunted with so many coming at him and trying to take him down.

This is essentially what Federer dealt with for the majority of his career.

He never trailed.

Furthermore, he played with that target on his back for nearly the entirety of it.

Is Federer that unique in the universe that there can never be another of his caliber?

 

[Ray Mercer]

Tied at 20 for now. It will be broken this time next year. Imagine a year without Nadal or Djokovic winning a slam? It's impossible to imagine.

Nadal is toast. He's old, injured and plays infrequently. I want to see how the beating Djokovic just took by an average Medvedev affects his confidence.

 

[NoleFam]

This is essentially what Federer dealt with for the majority of his career.

He never trailed.

Furthermore, he played with that target on his back for nearly the entirety of it.

Is Federer that unique in the universe that there can never be another of his caliber?

Federer wasn't the lone lion the majority of his career. He had another lion to battle from early on and around 2008, Nadal had his 1st multi Slam year, was already at 5 Slams, and ended the year #1. Then Djokovic would make his true ascension a few years later. So from 2004-2007, Federer was mainly the lone lion besides Nadal in clay.

 

[ffw2]

Federer wasn't the lone lion the majority of his career. He had another lion to battle from early on and around 2008, Nadal had his 1st mutli Slam year, was already at 5 Slams, and ended the year #1. Then Djokovic would make his true ascension a few years later. So from 2004-2007, Federer was mainly the lone lion besides Nadal in clay.

Played with the target on his back for nearly the entire time.

Now imagine that a similar talent emerges. Only this time he's not chased by a couple of ATGs five and six years his junior, and a Tour willing to tailor conditions to their needs.

 

[NoleFam]

Played with the target on his back for nearly the entire time.

Now imagine that a similar talent emerges. Only this time he's not chased by a couple of ATGs five and six years his junior, and a Tour willing to tailor conditions to their needs.

Yea in those years he did, but he needed a generation of players who weren't on his level as well as no residual prime ATG in his way to dominate that much in that short amount of time. In my opinion, he ascended much faster because of that.

The gap in talent that happened from the big 3's generation to now has not been a normal thing in tennis. Raonic/Nishikori/Dimitrov generation is one of the weakest ever but I don't expect that to happen often, which is something else that will make it harder.

 

[Zetty]

Tied at 20 for now. It will be broken this time next year. Imagine a year without Nadal or Djokovic winning a slam? It's impossible to imagine.

It'd be glorious.

 

[ffw2]

Yea in those years he did, but he needed a generation of players who weren't on his level as well as no residual prime ATG in his way to dominate that much in that short amount if time. In my opinion, he ascended much faster because of that.

There's always somebody waiting in the wings. The gap in talent that happened from the big 3's generation to now has not been a normal thing in tennis. Raonic/Nishikori/Dimitrov generation is one of the weakest ever but I don't expect that to happen often, which is something else that will make it harder.

"in those years"?

Federer held sole possession of most major titles and most weeks at #1 until last year.

Now in this new scenario, imagine that the chasing pack is actually met with some competition. Also imagine that a pandemic doesn't come along to further assist them.

Seems doable, IMO.

 

[NoleFam]

"in those years"?

Federer held sole possession of most major titles and most weeks at #1 until last year.

Now in this new scenario, imagine that the chasing pack is actually met with some competition. Also imagine that a pandemic doesn't come along to further assist them.

Seems doable, IMO.

We know he held the records but that's not the point I'm making here. He held those records because he had a head start but was eventually caught by both of them.

The chasing pack didn't have competition? Did Federer have any the 1st part of his career? Also, the pandemic hurt Djokovic more than it helped him.

 

[ffw2]

We know he held the records but that's not the point I'm making here. He held those records because he had a head start but was eventually caught by both of them.

The chasing pack didn't have competition? Did Federer have any the 1st part of his career?

There's no "we." Talking to you, and only you.

The point is that Federer was the "hunted" for the entirety of his career. The challenge is increased exponentially in that situation.

And even being 5-6 years younger—with a complicit Tour on their side—they faced a monumental struggle.

 

[NoleFam]

There's no "we." Talking to you, and only you.

The point is that Federer was the "hunted" for the entirety of his career. The challenge is increased exponentially in that situation.

And even being 5-6 years younger—with a complicit Tour on their side—they faced a monumental struggle.

We means me and you obviously.

All 3 were the hunted, not just Federer. Djokovic has dominated for 10 years. You don't think he has been hunted?

 

[ChaelAZ]

Well, if we know anything of the past, Djo usually tanks badly after a highlight year, and Nadal always tears at least one GS off, if not two coming back from a long break.

Will be interesting.

 

[ffw2]

We means me and you obviously.

They all were the hunted, not just Federer. Djokovic has dominated for 10 years. You don't think he has been hunted?

You're not even trying at this point.

I'll sum up.

A new member of Club 20 could arise in the following circumstances:

• A Federer-level talent emerges again (is he really once-in-eternity?).
• The chasing pack of ATGs does not hold a 5-6 year age advantage over him.
• An acceptable level of competition prevents said pack from Hoovering up garbage wins.
• A pandemic does not arise, wreaking global havoc, and enabling further Hoovering.

 

[socallefty]

He must know something we don't.

Maybe Federer will give Nadal and Djokovic a certain amount of ON stock in return for them retiring at 20 Slams also. How much do you think it is worth it for Federer to have the Slam title race be deadlocked at 20 Slams each when all of the Big 3 are retired? Supposedly, he is worth well more than $1 billion after making hundreds of millions when ON went public last week.

 

[bluetrain4]

I completely agree with him.

I find it implausible that three players in more or less the same era can all reach twenty and yet somehow no player in the future will be able to do something similar.

Borg managed 11 despite missing numerous Slams and retiring at 26. How many is a modern-day Borg, with all the luxuries of the modern top player's lifestyle, going to win?

I think the exact opposite. The post Big Three ATP will be more like the current WTA - much bigger pool of players who can contend and win. No one comes close to 20.

 

[NoleFam]

You're not even trying at this point.

I'll sum up.

A new member of Club 20 could arise in the following circumstances:

• A Federer-level talent emerges again (is he really once-in-eternity?).
• The chasing pack of ATGs does not hold a 5-6 year age advantage over him.
• An acceptable level of competition prevents said pack from Hoovering up garbage wins.
• A pandemic does not arise, wreaking global havoc, and enabling further Hoovering.

Your view is too Fed centric so there's not much getting through to that, and you seem to have missed the whole point I was trying to make earlier. Also, Wimbledon was cancelled during the pandemic. I can't see how that helped Djokovic of all people being that he would have been a massive favorite.

 

[ffw2]

Your view is too Fed centric so there's not much getting through to that, and you seem to have missed the whole point I was trying to make earlier. Also, Wimbledon was cancelled during the pandemic. I can't see how that helped Djokovic of all people being that he would have been a massive favorite.

Your point was that being "the hunted" would prevent a future GOAT-level talent from achieving GOAThood.

Somehow Federer managed it.

Even if the parameters of the Tour are changed—which is a certainty after what they've engineered here—the odds of a comparable talent never coming along are astronomical.

 

[NoleFam]

Your point was that being "the hunted" would prevent a future GOAT-level talent from achieving GOAThood.

Somehow Federer managed it.

Even if the parameters of the Tour are changed—which is a certainty after what they've engineered here—the odds of a comparable talent never coming along are astronomical.

Federer reached 20 in 15 years. Djokovic did it in 13, and achieved it 3 years after he did although Federer had a 6 year head start. So yea Federer was ahead but he hasn't been top dog in a long time. You're all off topic here but this is how it really went down.

Point is them being a dominant trio for such a long time, allowed them to block a lot of other players from winning Slams. They also kept pushing each other and that's how they added all those Slams since 2008. A lone champion is going to have a harder time duplicating it.

 

[ffw2]

Federer reached 20 in 15 years. Djokovic did it in 13, and achieved it 3 years after he did although Federer had a 6 year head start. So yea Federer was ahead but he hasn't been top dog in a long time. You're all off topic here but this is how it really went down.

Point is them being a dominant trio for such a long time, allowed them to block a lot of other players from winning Slams. They kept pushing each other and that's how they added all those Slams since 2008. A lone champion is going to have a harder time duplicating it.

If it's "off topic" it's only because I was responding to your point.

In any case, Djokovic did it in less time? Whole lotta asterisks involved there, as I've detailed.

And that is really the fundamental point: A new GOAT would have to arise in a less asterisk-laden era.

You seem to want the last word here. Happy to oblige.

 

[NoleFam]

If it's "off topic" it's only because I was responding to your point.

In any case, Djokovic did it in less time? Whole lotta asterisks involved there, as I've detailed.

And that is really the fundamental point: A new GOAT would have to arise in a less asterisk-laden era.

You seem to want the last word here. Happy to oblige.

Your asterisks don't mean that much. Lol. Djokovic reached and passed Federer's top 10 and top 5 wins in way less time. Hard to argue he did it because of lack of competition.

And that's your opinion but I just don't agree with it.

How am I trying to have the last word? You engaged me and I'm responding.

 

[One Handed Dynasty]

Federer seems to know that none of the current holders of 20 Jam titles will exceed that number.

I tend to agree.

But do the rest of you believe—like Federer—that it is a certainty?

No, I think Nole easily has one more. Honestly if Rafa isn’t able to recover well enough from his foot injury to be himself in 5 set matches then I don’t see who would be favored over Novak at RG. Put him in as the favorite still at AO and Wimbledon and it’s not crazy to think we go into next year’s USO wondering if he’ll complete the CYGS. The only question is if he has the motivation to put himself through the daily grind to play at that level for another year. I fully believe he was ready to pull a Sampras and drop the mic and retire with 21 and the CYGS if he’d beaten Medvedev.

 

[ffw2]

No, I think Nole easily has one more. Honestly if Rafa isn’t able to recover well enough from his foot injury to be himself in 5 set matches then I don’t see who would be favored over Novak at RG. Put him in as the favorite still at AO and Wimbledon and it’s not crazy to think we go into next year’s USO wondering if he’ll complete the CYGS. The only question is if he has the motivation to put himself through the daily grind to play at that level for another year. I fully believe he was ready to pull a Sampras and drop the mic and retire with 21 and the CYGS if he’d beaten Medvedev.

I am actually with Federer on this one. "20" is the desired gold standard right now.

Consequently, zero more Crams for Djokovic. Or Federer. Or Nadal.

Also, Djokovic barely scraped out this year's RG final. Took a massive choke for it to happen.

 

[T007]

Ask him again when Nole sets the bar on 25

Saw it in USO....no more false expectations. Next year is his last chance. There more complains for tough draws if he loses.

Every year he can't avoid big servers and top 10 players till Finals in wimbledon.

 

[Mustard]

I don't see another 20 happening any time soon, not within the next few decades.

People said that about 14.

 

[T007]

No, I think Nole easily has one more. Honestly if Rafa isn’t able to recover well enough from his foot injury to be himself in 5 set matches then I don’t see who would be favored over Novak at RG. Put him in as the favorite still at AO and Wimbledon and it’s not crazy to think we go into next year’s USO wondering if he’ll complete the CYGS. The only question is if he has the motivation to put himself through the daily grind to play at that level for another year. I fully believe he was ready to pull a Sampras and drop the mic and retire with 21 and the CYGS if he’d beaten Medvedev.

Tsitsipas and zverev are more than threat for him in RG. Medvdev will improve further....

Djokovic is no more stronger from the baseline against the best. He serve and volleys and approches very often and it will help him on grass but bot on clay.

AO and Wimbledon are his best chances

 

[Nadal_Django]

Saw it in USO....no more false expectations. Next year is his last chance. There more complains for tough draws if he loses.

Every year he can't avoid big servers and top 10 players till Finals in wimbledon.

Maybe you'll be right, who knows, we will see, but people have this "that's the last of Djokovic" talk, ever since 2015 or so. Lol

 

[ffw2]

Saw it in USO....no more false expectations. Next year is his last chance. There more complains for tough draws if he loses.

Every year he can't avoid big servers and top 10 players till Finals in wimbledon.

Will be interesting to see what's next for him.

Federer's obviously a tennis "lifer." Not sure where the others will put their time.

 

[One Handed Dynasty]

Tsitsipas and zverev are more than threat for him in RG. Medvdev will improve further....

Djokovic is no more stronger from the baseline against the best. He serve and volleys and approches very often and it will help him on grass but bot on clay.

AO and Wimbledon are his best chances

Have to disagree with you there. He used S&V at the uso after being gassed from 3 slam finals and Olympics. He dominated the next gen from the baseline through the first 3 slams. Tsitsipas has continued to show that he is exactly who we think he is: a mental midget. Zverev beat Novak in a best of 3, which isn’t the same sport as best of 5. The mental and physical level required for success between the two are incomparable. Bo5 is among the toughest mental and physical tasks in sport, Bo3 is the low hanging fruit for the Krygios and Tsitsipas of the world to justify subpar mental and physical conditioning.

 

[smalahove]

Imagine 3 players going 20/20/20 in golf

Jack Nicklaus	18
Tiger Woods	15
Walter Hagen	11
Ben Hogan	9
Gary Player	9
Tom Watson	8
Bobby Jones	7
Arnold Palmer	7
Sam Snead	7
Harry Vardon-	7
Gene Sarazen	7

If majors in golf were decided in matchplay, this list would tally bigger numbers, for sure.
Playing against the field otoh, is much, much more difficult, esp when it comes to lifting trophies.

 

[socallefty]

Does Federer have a plan to keep it deadlocked at 20 Slams?

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer won 10 or 11 of his Slams before they were the top 3 but that's approximately half of 20. He had the perfect scenario to reel off so many Slams in a short amount of time but eventually the field caught up.

And Nadal got there by racking up a million French Opens and Djokovic got there because he had no ATG 5-6 years younger than him.

 

[Azure]

And Nadal got there by racking up a million French Opens and Djokovic got there because he had no ATG 5-6 years younger than him.

A million RGs would have him at a million grand slams, silly. Not 20.

 

[tennis_pro]

A million RGs would have him at a million grand slams, silly. Not 20.

oh!

 

[mightyjeditribble]

All three did that. And before them Sampras did that. This has been going on for the past three decades.

I think the point is that for Sampras, RG was very much out of the equation due to the difference in surfaces and playing styles required on them.

It was first Sampras and then Fed that established the slams count as one of the primary measures of greatness. And it was only really Nadal and Djokovic (along with changes introduced by the ATP) that also elevated MS far above the remaining tournaments.

 

[Kralingen]

And Nadal got there by racking up a million French Opens and Djokovic got there because he had no ATG 5-6 years younger than him.

All equally legit and all equally counting the same. Federer won half a million Wimbledons but I never see complaints there, and Wimby is as unique and standalone as any. There’s 3 clay masters in the ATP tour and 2 ATP 500s on grass. Yet clay is somehow the gimmicky surface, and no one has the temerity to make the same point about grass?

And if you mention Djokovic’s lack of ATGs 6 years younger than him surely the lack of even a good player 5-6 years OLDER than Federer should also be taken into account while Djo had to break through a double GOAT wall and establish confidence in some of the hardest possible years.

So unless you’re crying or salty all 20 Slams are equal in my eyes. aside from the Berrettini Opens Djokodal have won, which as you know count double.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Maybe it was all one big fix to get them all on 20-20-20 for story telling, and that was it. They were all in on it and made millions off of crazed fans who bought it hook line and sinker.

In wrestling we call this a work, where they make it look real, but they are all in on it.

Haha, it does seem a bit too perfect doesn't it? Which is why it probably won't happen.

Djokovic winning three slams in a season, reaching every final, and then none again seems unlikely. But it's not completely unthinkable either, with the younger generation finally stepping up a bit.

It would be a bit surprise to see Nadal win another GS title off clay, but it would be foolish to write him off at RG.

Djokovic will remain a favourite at all the slams. Medvedev and Zverev have shown they can stop him, but both have been disappointing on grass so far. Even if he doesn't capture AO or RG, who will stop him at Wimbledon? Of course he's getting to an age where he can easily have an off day, but things would have to a bit wrong for him at all the slams over the next two years or so for him to not pick up another major title.

 

[junior74]

"Vaccine-hesitant tennis champion Novak Djokovic could be BANNED from the Australian Open as Victoria demands all players get a Covid jab before they play"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Open-Victoria-demands-players-Covid-jab.html

20-20-20
4 ever

 

[mightyjeditribble]

There's been a suggestion that Djoko is already vaccinated given that he may have been at some events in New York pre-USO that required proof of vaccination.

In any case, I doubt that Djokovic misses AO over vaccines.

 

[ffw2]

Does Federer have a plan to keep it deadlocked at 20 Slams?

Possibly.

He likely doesn't have as much control as he'd like right now.

But Laver Cup will change things.

 

[mike danny]

Federer won 10 or 11 of his Slams before they were the top 3 but that's approximately half of 20. He had the perfect scenario to reel off so many Slams in a short amount of time but eventually the field caught up. That's why I don't see a lone dominant champ getting to 20. He's going to be the hunted with so many coming at him and trying to take him down. When it's 2 or 3 dominant ones, it's hard to take all 3 of them down. Plus, they had all the surfaces on lockdown. Nadal is a clay god who was almost impossible to stop at RG. Federer is the most dominant on grass and then when he fell off Nadal, Djokovic and Murray picked up the slack, with Djokovic being 2nd to Federer. Djokovic is the all time best at AO and took over from Federer after his dominant years, with Federer picking up the slack when he fell off for a bit. This left only the USO, where they weren't as dominant, but still won lots of those as well. That was really the only Slam they left on the table. It was the perfect storm where they built their own impenetrable wall to completely own the game. That will be hard to duplicate again.

All 3 of them have inflated their slam counts at this point.