Djokovic 19 consecutive sets won on hard.

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
You keep mentioning the head to head with Nadal but ignore the fact that Federer's head to head against Djokovic only becomes worse. I think it is safe to say that at least in Wimbledon 2019 Federer clearly lost much more than he won. Some Federer fans just mention that semifinal against Nadal to feel better about the horrible loss in the final. You can call me a hater for writing this, that's your opinion. Maybe you think I'm also a Nadal hater because I think he hurts his legacy with all these losses now?
I don’t think he has “ruined” his legacy with that, only probably cost himself the slam record.

If he had retired, he would be 2nd and almost 3rd now anyway.
 

Drob

Professional
Also it didn't matter that Sampras had 0 RG titles when he became the all time slam holder.

Therefore your comment about Nadal being a distant third on grass or HC means nothing.
I trust that since the 1990, our analysis as become more refined and rigorous. I trust no one would make the mistake of overlooking Sampras' RG futility and not-so-impressive Super Nine record (as well as rather poor Davis Cup). Not that I am sure such things were not mentioned at the time. When Sampras broke "the record" - a record even the record holder did not realize was a record, or something to be coveted - the talk was that Sampras was one of a handful of "greatest". Some sports writers may have suggested he was the greatest, but I believe at that point Laver and Borg were rated above Pete (and, of course, two or three or four other contenders had begun to be forgotten - Tilden, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall).

Thanks in part to our forums here on Talk Tennis and the interchange of ideas, I believe we have a broader set of criterion than simply number of Slams. Nadal is incapable of winning an indoor title. His indoor record is worse than Sampras' clay record.

Clay is my favorite surface. In the game's history, it was a close second to grass for the pre-Open amateurs, but not used that often among the Pros. In this century, Clay has become considerably more important than indoor, with with RG and 3 M1000s versus one M1000 and the YEC.

Where does each of the big three land on each surface or condition is one interesting way to look at their relative merits.

I list here what I submit are quite plausible lists of top-20 players by surface. I am not fixed on the rank order, or I may well have left someone off who is deserving. On Clay, there are close arguments for those last few spots. But that is irrelevant. This is to see where each of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic rank by surface.

CLAY

Nadal (1)

Borg
Cochet
Lendl
Rosewall
Laver
Kuerten
Djokovic (8)
Lacoste
Tilden
Drobny
Cramm
Wilander
Trabert
Courier
Federer (16)
Gonzalez
Gimeno
Nusslein
(tie) Vilas, Ferrero and Riggs


GRASS

Tilden
Laver
Federer (3)
Sampras
Djokovic (5)
Budge
Borg
Hoad
Becker
Rosewall
Gonzalez
Newcombe
Perry
Lacoste
McEnroe
Sedgman
Edberg
Connors
Cochet
Kramer


Nadal (22), behind Murray and Ivanisevic.



OUTDOOR HARD

Djokovic (1)
Federer (2)

Gonzalez
Connors
Agassi
Lendl
Budge
Sampras
McEnroe
Kramer
Nadal (11)
Vines
Perry
Laver
Gonzalez
Tilden
Courier
Sedgman
Rosewall
Johnston


INDOOR (generic, not parsing by surface, but obviously in 1970s-90s, this is majority carpet. For the pre-Open pros, it is wood, hard or canvass over ice or some other surface).

Gonzalez
Laver
McEnroe
Lendl
Rosewall
Kramer
Sampras
Becker
Borg
Djokovic (10)
Ashe
Vines
Budge
Borotra
Federer (15)
Hoad
Perry
Sedgman
Segura
Newcombe



RESULTS:

FEDERER: Clay (16);
Grass (3);
Outdoor Hard (2);
Indoor (15)

NADAL: Clay (1);
Hard (11);
Grass (22);
Indoor (no and not close)

DJOKOVIC: Clay (8);
Grass (5);
Hard (1);
Indoor (10)

This is merely one of many tools we can use to analyze where the Big Three stand. All legitimate methods should be looked at and considered. But this notion that if Nadal wins two more Slams nothing else matters is misguided, IMHO.
 
Last edited:

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
in 2000/02 Sampras became the GOAT on 3 of the 4 surfaces (most Wimbledons, joint most US opens in the open era, + most YEs and 6 YE number ones), bit of a difference to being best on one surface and unable to win the YE, and much as i love what Nadal did at W08, he wouldnt have won Wimbledon ever if the grass hadnt been slowed down. + Sampras is still better than Nadal on 3 of the 4 surfaces and 3 of the 4 slams
Do you say '3 of 4 surfaces' yet you only mention Wimbledon and USO . What about these other 2 surfaces you mention?
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
I trust that since the 1990, our analysis as become more refined and rigorous. I trust no one would make the mistake of overlooking Sampras' RG futility and not-so-impressive Super Nine record (as well as rather poor Davis Cup). Not that I am sure such things were not mentioned at the time. When Sampras broke "the record" - a record even the record holder did not realize was a record, or something to be coveted - the talk was that Sampras was one of a handful of "greatest". Some sports writers may have suggested he was the greatest, but I believe at that point Laver and Borg were rated above Pete (and, of course, two or three or four other contenders had begun to be forgotten - Tilden, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall).

Thanks in part to our forums here on Talk Tennis and the interchange of ideas, I believe we have a broader set of criterion than simply number of Slams. Nadal is incapable of winning an indoor title. His indoor record is worse than Sampras' clay record.

Clay is my favorite surface. In the game's history, it was a close second to grass for the pre-Open amateurs, but not used that often among the Pros. In this century, Clay has become considerably more important than indoor, with with RG and 3 M1000s versus one M1000 and the YEC.

Where does each of the big three land on each surface or condition is one interesting way to look at their relative merits.

I list here what I submit are quite plausible lists of top-20 players by surface. I am not fixed on the rank order, or I may well have left someone off who is deserving. On Clay, there are close arguments for those last few spots. But that is irrelevant. This is to see where each of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic rank by surface.

CLAY

Nadal (1)

Borg
Cochet
Lendl
Rosewall
Laver
Kuerten
Djokovic (8)
Lacoste
Tilden
Drobny
Cramm
Wilander
Trabert
Courier
Federer (16)
Gonzalez
Gimeno
Nusslein
(tie) Vilas, Ferrero and Riggs


GRASS

Tilden
Laver
Federer (3)
Sampras
Djokovic (5)
Budge
Borg
Hoad
Becker
Rosewall
Gonzalez
Newcombe
Perry
Lacoste
McEnroe
Edberg
Cochet
Kramer
Murray
Nadal (20)

I AM STRETCHING A LITTLE IN FAVOR OF NADAL HERE. I BUMPED SEDGMAN OFF THIS LIST, and ignored the claims of a few others so as to avoid an injustice to Rafa.


OUTDOOR HARD

Djokovic (1)
Federer (2)

Gonzalez
Connors
Agassi
Lendl
Budge
Sampras
McEnroe
Kramer
Nadal (11)
Vines
Perry
Laver
Gonzalez
Tilden
Courier
Sedgman
Rosewall
Johnston


INDOOR (generic, not parsing by surface, but obviously in 1970s-90s, this is majority carpet. For the pre-Open pros, it is wood, hard or canvass over ice or some other surface).

Gonzalez
Laver
McEnroe
Lendl
Rosewall
Kramer
Sampras
Becker
Borg
Djokovic (10)
Ashe
Vines
Budge
Borotra
Federer (15)
Hoad
Perry
Sedgman
Segura
Newcombe



RESULTS:

FEDERER: Clay (16);
Grass (3);
Outdoor Hard (2);
Indoor (15)

NADAL: Clay (1);
Hard (11);
Grass (20);
Indoor (no and not close)

DJOKOVIC: Clay (8);
Grass (5);
Hard (1);
Indoor (10)

This is merely one of many tools we can use to analyze where the Big Three stand. All legitimate methods should be looked at and considered. But this notion that if Nadal wins two more Slams nothing else matters is misguided, IMHO.
Decent stats. But this is only for tennis fanatics.
The general person will only know Nadal has finished holding most slams , if he does, and will therefore generally be considered the greatest.
IMO a casual fan will only care about slams and the fact Nadal kills Fed in the H2H. Not my opinion, but these are things people think.
Just because you can dig up stats that is your opinion , doesn't mean that's correct either.
If Djokovic finishes with most slams then there is absolutely no argument , as his resume is unrivalled in most categories. But if it ends up Nadal, purely on slams and Masters titles, you can bet he will still be considered the goat , whether we agree or not.
 

Drob

Professional
Of course it matters to you, because you are a Nadal hater and only try to find reasons to bring it down. Now try to find a stat for Federer and Djokovic which comes even close to winning a single slam 12 times. (leave alone winning masters tournaments 11 times, 9 times). But of course you will just say dominance on your best surface doesn't matter, because you hate Nadal.

Anyway, you are a troll and you proved it many times. It's strange I'm even replying to you.
"Troll"? I've seen that lately on the internet. Let me guess: someone who specifically sort of targets or follows all the posts of another poster? Or else, what is it?
 

Drob

Professional
These are not excuses, these are FACTS. Sad you can't accept that Nadal is nowhere near his prime starting from 2014. I repeat my question-when exactly during his prime Nadal had a chance to face an out of form Djokovic? Never happened, except maybe RG 2006 and Rome 2007. He always had to deal with the best versions of Federer and Djokovic.
It is a good point. Both Nadal and Djokovic have won most of their great titles during what has, with occasional slumps, been a true golden era - one of the highest sustained levels of competition over many years. Basically true it was always in-form Fed and Nole Rafa had to face, and the same for Nole (and for Fed since 2008). Rafa's hard court romp in 2013 might have been made easier by Federer's bad back - not an in-form Federer in 2013. Rafa's 2017 USO undoubtedly made easier because Nole's was still in the wilderness - in fact I think he did not even compete because of the elbow. And I would say the same for Rafa's 2017 RG, as that was smack in the middle of the Djokovic meltdown period. But these are just exceptions that prove the rule. Your basic point is right-on. But it also applies to Djokovic. It applies to Federer as to what we might call "the second half" of his career, and it applies to Murray. It does not apply to Warwinka. Stan would never be a consistent champion, in any era. On the other hand, the three Slams he won, you couldn't stop him if you added peak Sampras, Agassi and Kuerten to the circuit.
 
Last edited:

Chronos

New User
It's a simple fact. Djokovic during his prime faced an out of form Nadal MUCH more times than the other way around, and you find it hard to admit that. (and don't bring me this BS that Djokovic was a nobody before 2011)
And Nadal has faced injured and racked changed 32 year-old (the age you consider Nadal is old) Federer 5 times in 2013 but Federer never had the chance to meet him in 2015. And Nadal wasn't there in USO when Federer was ruling there with 6 consecutive finals.So you see, it was actually Nadal has benefited most regarding H2H by meeting with his rival only when he is fully fit and when his own territory.He used this to built a mental block to Federer very cleverly.
 
And Nadal has faced injured and racked changed 32 year-old (the age you consider Nadal is old) Federer 5 times in 2013 but Federer never had the chance to meet him in 2015. And Nadal wasn't there in USO when Federer was ruling there with 6 consecutive finals.So you see, it was actually Nadal has benefited most regarding H2H by meeting with his rival only when he is fully fit and when his own territory.He used this to built a mental block to Federer very cleverly.
And nobody ever said the 2013 wins were wins over a good Federer (well, except for Cincinnati 2013 where Federer played well for part of the match) or even against a decent one. But now all the haters claim that Djokovic is destroying peak Nadal.
 

Chronos

New User
Non of the big 3 is in peak right now.2005-2006 Fed,2010 Nadal,2011 Djokovic would destroy any of the big3 currently.Even Nadal at FO is not that good anymore to beat 2011 Fed or Djokovic. They lost their movement and consistency very much.Issue is that there is no new guy to feast on this and make himself a legend.
 

Krish0608

Hall of Fame
And nobody ever said the 2013 wins were wins over a good Federer (well, except for Cincinnati 2013 where Federer played well for part of the match) or even against a decent one. But now all the haters claim that Djokovic is destroying peak Nadal.
It's not peak Nadal. Nobody's saying that.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Federer is also hurting his legacy by playing for so long. Being 0-3 against Djokovic in Wimbledon finals isn't a stat to be proud of when you are a player who is supposed to be Wimbledon GOAT. Actually, Djokovic is the only one of them who is only improving his legacy after his prime.
It is simply impossible to ruin a legacy with NOT retiring, but perfectly possible to do it WITH retiring.

If someone retires while he still has chances to win titles, the total number will be smaller, and that is the only factor that counts in the end. Losses on the way to more glory are irrelevant (and any sane person will understand that while becoming older it becomes more difficult, even if that happens a bit later nowadays).

"H2H against main rivals" is completely irrelevant anyway. I could bring forward many reasons here, but the main reason is that giving any value to H2H would mean losing early to Anderson, Millman, Tsitsipas etc. was better than losing to Djokovic or Nadal, which would be absurd, plain and simple.

Even if there are no contemporary rivals, then retiring before the last opportunity for winning Slam would be devastating for the legacy. Imagine 17 would have been enough for Federer in his days and then someone 20-30 years from now comes up with 18 or 19. Then he would be considered GOAT, but not with Federer having 20 Slams.

So no matter from which perspective we look at it: Legacy, his own love for the game or his fans: Federer playing as long as he can is the best thing that can happen.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
And nobody ever said the 2013 wins were wins over a good Federer (well, except for Cincinnati 2013 where Federer played well for part of the match) or even against a decent one. But now all the haters claim that Djokovic is destroying peak Nadal.
What difference does it make if Nadal's in peak form or not? He's still getting destroyed by Nole on HC's! People say how great Rafa's playing one day, then when Nole gets thru with him, all of a sudden he's aged, decrepit, injured, and out of sorts due to family BS! No one cares; esp. the record books! :sneaky:
 
What difference does it make if Nadal's in peak form or not? He's still getting destroyed by Nole on HC's! People say how great Rafa's playing one day, then when Nole gets thru with him, all of a sudden he's aged, decrepit, injured, and out of sorts due to family BS! No one cares; esp. the record books! :sneaky:
Nadal is NOT playing great right now. If you want to see what is Nadal playing great then go watch AO 2009. Now Nadal is NOWHERE near that level.
 
I don't think these types of stats matter all that much. Of course sets translate into matches, but when one guy is #1 and is 3 slams ahead of the guy in question then "consecutive sets won on a HC" doesn't really factor into the equation. A stat for wikipedia warriors as it is.
True that. The Lewsers (geddit?) of this world like stats such as this.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Not only 19 straight sets, just complete helplessness on Nadal’s part. Nadal has broken only twice in thise nineteen sets and has generated only 15 break points (5 of thise today).

Dominance ratios of:

2.81
1.43
1.97
1.50
1.91
2.35
1.43
2.40
1.63

Even journeyman don’t get domianted to this level and it’s honestly shocking seeing as how good of a player Nadal is.
This might ring truistic on my part but your post really emphasizes how surface-specific a lot of the ‘aggregate’ stroke/game advantages Nadal/Fed/Djokovic hold over one another are. For example, it’s frequently bandied about that Nadal has a stronger return game than Fed when the latters detractors call out his serve-bottery. While this is true it’s only so because Nadal’s return game on clay is several tiers ahead of Federer’s, to the point that it’s laughable to deny he has the better return game.

Yet, on HC and grass Federer’s return game is clearly superior. Not by the same margin, but it is, and the better the competition gets the more lopsided it is (against sub-50 players and consequently the field as a whole Nadal wins out in return game %’s, but against the top 50, 20, 10 and 5 Federer has the advantage and the advantage increases the higher the ranking is. Which, to me, is more important than rgw% against the entire field as neither Fed nor Nadal are in danger of losing to sub-50 guys very often.)

Nadal’s utter futility on the return against Djokovic on HC is but one reason his return game is a notch below Federer’s on non-clay. Eye-balling it on TA it looks like Djokovic has held 84 of 86 times against Nadal over that 9 match span. The idea of Federer breaking anyone only twice over a 9 match span is basically unfathomable.
 
Last edited:

Mike Sams

Legend
Nadal is NOT playing great right now. If you want to see what is Nadal playing great then go watch AO 2009. Now Nadal is NOWHERE near that level.
So you're listing just 1 tournament as an example of prime Nadal? Especially a tournament where he barely managed to scrape through in the semifinal against Verdasco and barely got through a broken-back and mentally done Federer by the skin of his teeth??? :-D :-D :-D
 
So you're listing just 1 tournament as an example of prime Nadal? Especially a tournament where he barely managed to scrape through in the semifinal against Verdasco and barely got through a broken-back and mentally done Federer by the skin of his teeth??? :-D :-D :-D
So you think Nadal played better in AO 2019? :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
 

Mike Sams

Legend
So you think Nadal played better in AO 2019? :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Nobody cares about 1 tournament. Even Tsonga had a great AO2008 run. We're talking about an extended period of consistency where he's playing great tennis. He won 2 Slams in 2019 and made 1 final and 1 semifinal which means Nadal was playing exceptionally well in 2019 throughout the season.
 
Nobody cares about 1 tournament. Even Tsonga had a great AO2008 run. We're talking about an extended period of consistency where he's playing great tennis. He won 2 Slams in 2019 and made 1 final and 1 semifinal which means Nadal was playing exceptionally well in 2019 throughout the season.
It's probably too hard for you to understand that being consistent !=playing great tennis. If anything, Nadal had one of his worst clay seasons last year.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
It's probably too hard for you to understand that being consistent !=playing great tennis. If anything, Nadal had one of his worst clay seasons last year.
it was a tale of two seasons on clay for Nadal last year, surely you must acknowledge that. His form at Rome and RG was characteristically fantastic.
 
it was a tale of two seasons on clay for Nadal last year, surely you must acknowledge that. His form at Rome and RG was characteristically fantastic.
He was decent in Rome and RG, but fantastic? No. Nadal was below average for most of 2019, he just managed to play relatively well in slams. (though nothing close to his prime level)
 
It's not peak Nadal. Nobody's saying that.
Haters are now keep writing how Nadal is being dominated on hardcourt while he never could do the same to his opponents on clay. What a joke. He had to face PEAK Federer and Djokovic on clay, of course they gave a better fight. When Nadal was in his prime he also gave a big fight to Djokovic on hardcourt, and even beat him sometimes. What do you think would have happened if prime Nadal faced past his prime Djokovic on clay as many times as Djokovic is facing post AO 2014 Nadal on hardcourt? Pretty sure Nadal would also destroy him.

All this disrespect to Nadal is unreal. If 25 years old Nadal would not be able to win a set against his rivals it would be pathetic. But Nadal is long past his prime.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
He was decent in Rome and RG, but fantastic? No. Nadal was below average for most of 2019, he just managed to play relatively well in slams. (though nothing close to his prime level)
Really not sure what more he could have done to be labelled as more than ‘decent’ in Rome considering he won 51% of his return points, was bludgeoning the ball off both wings, avenged a loss to an in-form opponent, beat a Djokovic who was fresh off a dominant win in Madrid by hitting 31W’s to 19UFE’s (positive differential in all three sets, 20-10 in the two sets he won) and dished out bakery products in 8 of 11 sets.

At RG it was business as usual and made Thiem, Nishi and Federer look like rank amateurs. Not one of his best RG campaigns but not among his worst either. Middling at worst, which is indeed fantastic.

I get it’s common to reflexively dismiss claims that the Big 3 can play near prime levels for short periods of time well into their 30s, but in this case it’s kind of hard not to see that Nadal played well even for his standards.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
It's funny that Djokovic and Federer lost Slams to Istomin or Millman but always go full power against Nadal :-D
 
I don't think these types of stats matter all that much. Of course sets translate into matches, but when one guy is #1 and is 3 slams ahead of the guy in question then "consecutive sets won on a HC" doesn't really factor into the equation. A stat for wikipedia warriors as it is.
I mean yeah sure, but while I don't care much about GOAT debates, for the purpose of them, it is one of the examples of why I would not be comfortable considering Nadal the GOAT even with 20 or 21 majors. I don't even consider Federer the hands down GOAT like some, but I am far more comfortable with him than with a guy who can lose 19 straight sets to his main rival on a surface he has won 5 majors on. That is pretty pathetic, and there is nothing GOAT-like about it.
 
I trust that since the 1990, our analysis as become more refined and rigorous. I trust no one would make the mistake of overlooking Sampras' RG futility and not-so-impressive Super Nine record (as well as rather poor Davis Cup). Not that I am sure such things were not mentioned at the time. When Sampras broke "the record" - a record even the record holder did not realize was a record, or something to be coveted - the talk was that Sampras was one of a handful of "greatest". Some sports writers may have suggested he was the greatest, but I believe at that point Laver and Borg were rated above Pete (and, of course, two or three or four other contenders had begun to be forgotten - Tilden, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall).
No one cares that Sampras had a "not-so-impressive Super Nine record" - the tournaments weren't mandatory, weren't the biggest in the sport, and Pete didn't give his all in them.

Also, Borg wasn't generally rated above Sampras at the time of the latter's retirement.
 

Mike Sams

Legend
Leading into this match, Nadal had to face 56 BPs on his serve in the last eight matches on HC, while Djokovic faced only 10.
That's not even human!!! Good God!!! :eek:o_O:eek: That's bloody torture! Nadal's arm will probably fall off his shoulder one day.
 

Fabresque

Professional
Ridiculous if you ask me. You cannot possibly make an argument for Nadal anymore. He’s clearly no match for Djokovic on Hard courts. Hell, it’s been, like, 6 years since he last beat Federer on HC, and they’ve played 4-5 times since then.

Nadal can’t match Djokovic, and he can’t even match Federer anymore. There’s a reason he withdrew from the Bercy semi against Shapo. Not wanting to tank the semi and lose and not wanting to withdraw from the final/withstand another beating by Djokovic, he pussied out and pulled out against Shapo.
 

Mike Sams

Legend
Ridiculous if you ask me. You cannot possibly make an argument for Nadal anymore. He’s clearly no match for Djokovic on Hard courts. Hell, it’s been, like, 6 years since he last beat Federer on HC, and they’ve played 4-5 times since then.

Nadal can’t match Djokovic, and he can’t even match Federer anymore. There’s a reason he withdrew from the Bercy semi against Shapo. Not wanting to tank the semi and lose and not wanting to withdraw from the final/withstand another beating by Djokovic, he pussied out and pulled out against Shapo.
I can't ever discredit Nadal's will to win but that did seem very very suspicious to me. The injury excuse itself was weird seeing that it never came up again after that day. Especially for a world class athlete. He apparently injured his stomach while serving in practice??? :unsure: Would that have happened if it was Schwartzman or Monfils waiting in the final instead of Djokovic?
 

Fabresque

Professional
I can't ever discredit Nadal's will to win but that did seem very very suspicious to me. The injury excuse itself was weird seeing that it never came up again after that day. Especially for a world class athlete. He apparently injured his stomach while serving in practice??? :unsure: Would that have happened if it was Schwartzman or Monfils waiting in the final instead of Djokovic?
Highly doubt it. Pulled out against Federer at IW semi’s last year too. Then returns full strength next tournament or tournament after as always. Very suspect. I assume he just doesn’t want to play them because he himself knows that he can’t play with them on hard courts anymore. He most likely assumed that Russia would’ve beaten Serbia (he has no reason to fear Medvedev as he hasn’t lost to him) and wouldn’t have to play Djokovic. But, alas, Khachanov puts in a performance so bad Putin probably threw him in the depths of Siberia as capital punishment, and we get Djokodal in the ATP Cup final. Too suspicious to pull out, and he would’ve lost the tie for Spain right there if he did. So he pushes through. The usual straight sets loss. Cites fatigue for pulling out of the doubles which coincidentally also features Djokovic. Struck me as weird. Him and Djokovic both had difficult three setters in the previous round, Djokovic also had to play doubles and had a just as difficult three set the round before that against Shapo. I don’t believe that Novak that much more fit than Rafa that he can push on for one more match. I think Nadal was just scared of playing Djokovic yet again, and this time losing it for his country, not just himself.
 

Mike Sams

Legend
Highly doubt it. Pulled out against Federer at IW semi’s last year too. Then returns full strength next tournament or tournament after as always. Very suspect. I assume he just doesn’t want to play them because he himself knows that he can’t play with them on hard courts anymore. He most likely assumed that Russia would’ve beaten Serbia (he has no reason to fear Medvedev as he hasn’t lost to him) and wouldn’t have to play Djokovic. But, alas, Khachanov puts in a performance so bad Putin probably threw him in the depths of Siberia as capital punishment, and we get Djokodal in the ATP Cup final. Too suspicious to pull out, and he would’ve lost the tie for Spain right there if he did. So he pushes through. The usual straight sets loss. Cites fatigue for pulling out of the doubles which coincidentally also features Djokovic. Struck me as weird. Him and Djokovic both had difficult three setters in the previous round, Djokovic also had to play doubles and had a just as difficult three set the round before that against Shapo. I don’t believe that Novak that much more fit than Rafa that he can push on for one more match. I think Nadal was just scared of playing Djokovic yet again, and this time losing it for his country, not just himself.
This makes AO more enticing. Not just the potential of a Nadal/Djokovic final but the NextGen and several other potential threats who can give a lot of trouble to the big 3. I'm not fully sold yet on Djokovic or Nadal making the final. Sure, Djokovic pulled it out in some tough battles against Med and Shapovalov at the ATP Cup but he's shaky. He could draw Stan in the 4th round or have Thiem in the QF or Med in the SF and it could be really tough. Federer could end up in the Nadal section so that could be interesting.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
I mean yeah sure, but while I don't care much about GOAT debates, for the purpose of them, it is one of the examples of why I would not be comfortable considering Nadal the GOAT even with 20 or 21 majors. I don't even consider Federer the hands down GOAT like some, but I am far more comfortable with him than with a guy who can lose 19 straight sets to his main rival on a surface he has won 5 majors on. That is pretty pathetic, and there is nothing GOAT-like about it.
Fair enough. For what it's worth I share much of your opinion re: the GOAT debate. I don't really have any time for it anmore which is why GPPD is such a pain in the ass these days. I don't really believe in calling anyone the hands down GOAT, not even Federer, and if I ever did call him the GOAT it was only jokingly or to **** off a scattered Nadal fan here and there. Either that or I did it when I was much younger and lived more vicariously through my favourite player's success which I now realize was a big mistake.
 

GuyForget

New User
Federer is also hurting his legacy by playing for so long. Being 0-3 against Djokovic in Wimbledon finals isn't a stat to be proud of when you are a player who is supposed to be Wimbledon GOAT. Actually, Djokovic is the only one of them who is only improving his legacy after his prime.
wud u say Djoks is still prime on his day, e.g. AO19? similar to how Sampras was comparitively late in his career in the W99 final despite losing his number 1 ranking
 
Federer is also hurting his legacy by playing for so long. Being 0-3 against Djokovic in Wimbledon finals isn't a stat to be proud of when you are a player who is supposed to be Wimbledon GOAT. Actually, Djokovic is the only one of them who is only improving his legacy after his prime.
While it is not a great stat, what would your thoughts be if Rafa loses to Thiem in the next 3 RG? Will never happen, but he could get some losses there as well, and probably not even to ATG's such as Djoker late in his career.
 
Fair enough. For what it's worth I share much of your opinion re: the GOAT debate. I don't really have any time for it anmore which is why GPPD is such a pain in the ass these days. I don't really believe in calling anyone the hands down GOAT, not even Federer, and if I ever did call him the GOAT it was only jokingly or to **** off a scattered Nadal fan here and there. Either that or I did it when I was much younger and lived more vicariously through my favourite player's success which I now realize was a big mistake.
I understand the marketing of it since casual fans (who are most of fans) are dumb and need something easy to latch onto. So having 3 guys fighting for the GOAT title and it being tied to the slam race is easy marketing. It is just annoying, or should be, for more sophisticated fans who should want more diverse and interesting topics, although that doesn't even seem to the case as I am pretty sure a site like this is mostly very serious tennis fans that make up a minority.

The game is going to suck to promote and market when those 3 are retired. I can already see it now, them trying to hype the next guy with 5 slams as the supposed GOAT to bring viewing numbers back. It will be the equivalent of bringing fans back to baseball after the steroids home run derby era.
 
I understand the marketing of it since casual fans (who are most of fans) are dumb and need something easy to latch onto. So having 3 guys fighting for the GOAT title and it being tied to the slam race is easy marketing. It is just annoying, or should be, for more sophisticated fans who should want more diverse and interesting topics, although that doesn't even seem to the case as I am pretty sure a site like this is mostly very serious tennis fans that make up a minority.

The game is going to suck to promote and market when those 3 are retired. I can already see it now, them trying to hype the next guy with 5 slams as the supposed GOAT to bring viewing numbers back. It will be the equivalent of bringing fans back to baseball after the steroids home run derby era.
Bingo. GOAT debate=marketing=$$$$
 
Top