Djokovic is very underrated!

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

IMO Nole fans are happy with what he's achieved so far and don't claim him to be as great as Nadal.

It's the Fedts who are hell bent on making Djokovic Nadal's equal but both below Federer.

I do agree with that, if i was a Djokovic fan i would be happy of what he did so far, let's face it, Djokovic had to face the toughest era ever, competing with Fedex/Nadal/Murray/Del Potro/Soderling...

Even Chico admitted he would be happy with 10 grand slams, that's probably pretty much the number of grand slams he will end up with, between 10 and 12 IMO...

What Djokovic has done since 2008 is damn impressive, beating Federer or Nadal in each grand slam he won, except 1 i think.

 

[jg153040]

I do agree with that, if i was a Djokovic fan i would be happy of what he did so far, let's face it, Djokovic had to face the toughest era ever, competing with Fedex/Nadal/Murray/Del Potro/Soderling...

Even Chico admitted he would be happy with 10 grand slams, that's probably pretty much the number of grand slams he will end up with, between 10 and 12 IMO...

What Djokovic has done since 2008 is damn impressive, beating Federer or Nadal in each grand slam he won, except 1 i think.

I would be very happy with Djokovic having 10 majors.

But I can't be happy with 6. I think he is much better and he had tough draws.

Beating Fedal duopoly was so tough. Mentally too. Most guys gave up before even trying. And Nole to do what he did is incredible.

And Nole is Rafa's equal, except on clay. I guess clay gives Rafa the edge so he is slightly better overall.

And Fed's being a troll and bending for Rafa making him look better than he is.

Why can't Fed bend for Nole lol. Against Nole Fed is a different player. Maybe because Fed never liked Nole. And Fed was liking Nadal too much. It is war out there and Fed was seeing tennis as a picnic lol. Rafa was trying to kill Fed and Fed did nothing.
Fed is probably insane lol.

I mean he might be the best and most talented soldier, but I wouldn't send him to war . I mean he would just not fight.

I don't get it. There is a war and Fed is walking with flowers around vs guns. I mean what is he thinking. Maybe he feels he's done enough and settled for less.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

They only look great because there wasn't a guy like Sampras dominating them.

This is a weak era and lack of dominant champion makes those 3 guys look better than they really are .

Sampras was dominating his rivals. He has 175% more majors than the 2nd guy.
Fed only has 130% more majors than the 2nd guy.

 

[Chanwan]

So, what it happens. The probability of life starting on earth is astronomical too.

So if one thing, billions of years ago, was unlikely to happen and yet happened, anything post that is just 'well, it happened once, so of course strange statistical occurrences can happen any time - including in sports?'

I'm not saying it's certainly rigged. I'm saying it looks quite suspicious. And it does.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

I would be very happy with Djokovic having 10 majors.

But I can't be happy with 6. I think he is much better and he had tough draws.

Don't worry for me it's impossible that Djokovic will end up with 6 he is too good.

 

[jg153040]

So if one thing, billions of years ago, was unlikely to happen and yet happened, anything post that is just 'well, it happened once, so of course strange statistical occurrences can happen any time - including in sports?'

I'm not saying it's certainly rigged. I'm saying it looks quite suspicious. And it does.

Well, Fed winning so much looks suspicious too. So much that people think it's a weak era .

But when Nadal wins so much on clay, nobody is suspicious.

STrange.

 

[Kenshin]

Djokovic is one of my favorite player to watch. I hope he rectifies his not so great grandslam final results. 6-6 in finals. I believe he has much more potential than that.

 

[mbm0912]

Are you saying that he is an all time great now? I guess if you consider Boris Becker an all time great, then yes. So Tier 1 + Tier 2 + Tier 3 = All Time Greats?

I guess when you can beat the all time greats (Federer-Nadal), and have a very respectable slam count, then you should at least be mentioned with them, no?

 

[jg153040]

No, I'm just indicating how circular reasoning works.

I can make Roddick look goat with this logic if I wanted to.

Roddick had to play Djokovic, Nadal, Fed. Compared to Roddick they had it easy. And Nole had it the 2nd most toughest. Nole had to trough Fed/Murray/Rafa all the time in every major.

And Roddick leads Nole in the h2h. So Roddick had the toughest competition.
And he leads Djokovic in the h2h who had the 2nd toughest competition.
Also Roddick was nr.1 and won his major in this era.

Not to mention Roddick started to beat Sampras since he was a teen. Then Sampras retired who was being owned by Roddick. Otherwise Roddick would own the h2h. If teen Roddick can do that to Sampras imagine what peak Roddick would do.

Roddick for goat.

 

[jg153040]

I guess when you can beat the all time greats (Federer-Nadal), and have a very respectable slam count, then you should at least be mentioned with them, no?

Yeah this. And Djokovic also beat Murray. Chances are Murray will end up with 5 majors and become an all-time great too.

 

[syc23]

No one has mentioned that Federer/Nadal/Nole beat slam virgins Philipousis, Puerta Tsonga for their maiden GS. If Murray had benefitted from playing a non slam winner, I'd wager that Murray would be sitting on more than 5 slams now.

It's all what ifs, you can only play with the cards that you're dealt with. The (real) top 4 are assured their places in HOF. Even if Murray does not finish with at least 6 slams, he'll be remembered as one of the greats for winning the holy grail that is Wimbledon.

If Nadal and Fed is allowed to have a pet slam to inflate their slam count, then it's perfectly fine for Nole to collect more AOs in the future. He needs to watch out for Murray though, if Murray 3.0 is 100% again, I'd pencil the Scot down for at least 1x AO and 2 more Wimbledons.

 

[Chanwan]

No one has mentioned that Federer/Nadal/Nole beat slam virgins Philipousis, Puerta Tsonga for their maiden GS. If Murray had benefitted from playing a non slam winner, I'd wager that Murray would be sitting on more than 5 slams now.

It's all what ifs, you can only play with the cards that you're dealt with. The (real) top 4 are assured their places in HOF. Even if Murray does not finish with at least 6 slams, he'll be remembered as one of the greats for winning the holy grail that is Wimbledon.

If Nadal and Fed is allowed to have a pet slam to inflate their slam count, then it's perfectly fine for Nole to collect more AOs in the future. He needs to watch out for Murray though, if Murray 3.0 is 100% again, I'd pencil the Scot down for at least 1x AO and 2 more Wimbledons.

Hard to say. But I did mention the former (post 20). Anyhow, if Murray is fit, he can compete on more or less equal terms with Nole and Rafa.

 

[batz]

No one has mentioned that Federer/Nadal/Nole beat slam virgins Philipousis, Puerta Tsonga for their maiden GS. If Murray had benefitted from playing a non slam winner, I'd wager that Murray would be sitting on more than 5 slams now.

It's all what ifs, you can only play with the cards that you're dealt with. The (real) top 4 are assured their places in HOF. Even if Murray does not finish with at least 6 slams, he'll be remembered as one of the greats for winning the holy grail that is Wimbledon.

If Nadal and Fed is allowed to have a pet slam to inflate their slam count, then it's perfectly fine for Nole to collect more AOs in the future. He needs to watch out for Murray though, if Murray 3.0 is 100% again, I'd pencil the Scot down for at least 1x AO and 2 more Wimbledons.

Im not sure about murray having 5 slams but it is a fact that unlike nole, rafa and roger, murray has never had the good fortune to meet a player from outside the top 30 in any of his 7 slam finals. Every final has been agsinst the world number 1 or number 2.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

No, I'm just indicating how circular reasoning works.

I can make Roddick look goat with this logic if I wanted to.

Roddick had to play Djokovic, Nadal, Fed. Compared to Roddick they had it easy. And Nole had it the 2nd most toughest. Nole had to trough Fed/Murray/Rafa all the time in every major.

And Roddick leads Nole in the h2h. So Roddick had the toughest competition.
And he leads Djokovic in the h2h who had the 2nd toughest competition.
Also Roddick was nr.1 and won his major in this era.

Not to mention Roddick started to beat Sampras since he was a teen. Then Sampras retired who was being owned by Roddick. Otherwise Roddick would own the h2h. If teen Roddick can do that to Sampras imagine what peak Roddick would do.

Roddick for goat.

Well, that's very crafty and smart of you. But your argument is hanging from threads, smoke, and mirrors. On the other hand, it's clear peak Roddick is far inferior to peak Djokovic. At least this is my opinion, if not a fact.

I hope 5555 doesn't report me for plagiarism. He's been trigger happy lately.

 

[jg153040]

Well, that's very crafty and smart of you. But your argument is hanging from threads, smoke, and mirrors. On the other hand, it's clear peak Roddick is far inferior to peak Djokovic. At least this is my opinion, if not a fact.

I hope 5555 doesn't report me for plagiarism. He's been trigger happy lately.

Yes all circular arguments are like that. That is why it's illogical. It's hanging on threads.
I will show you in the same case.

I can also argue peak Fed only made Roddick look that way, because he was so good. And after Fed declined Djokovic emerged. Right after 2010.
And h2h between Roddick and Djokovic can support this line of reasoning.

See? This goat thing is all circular. I know this. But Fedal fanatics on both sides don't know. They both use it to support their claims. I'm having a blast going along with it .

Even Fed says this. He knows this goat thing is just a hype. He says he never knows who the goat is .

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Roddick was a great player, Federer was just a terrible match up for him.

 

[Chanwan]

Roddick was a great player, Federer was just a terrible match up for him.

Would you say the same sentence changing the names a bit?
Federer was a great player, Nadal was (is) just a terrible match up for him

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Would you say the same sentence changing the names a bit?
Federer was a great player, Nadal was (is) just a terrible match up for him

Yes of course, what is your point ? :neutral:

 

[Chanwan]

Yes of course, what is your point ? :neutral:

Well, I haven't followed posts on this forum long enough to know, but it's my impression that your favorite is Nadal? And I've followed TT long enough to know that there are many Nadal fans, who completely disregard any explanation of match ups, when it comes to Fed-Nadal. Hence the question.

 

[Overdrive]

When has Djokovic been underrated here?

 

[Chanwan]

Yes of course, what is your point ? :neutral:

Double post, hence deleted

 

[Maximagq]

Djokovic is a GOAT candidate. I can't believe people think otherwise....

 

[timnz]

He's not underrated

How do you think he is underrated? People here give him appropriate credit. He is definitely a great player. I have him as high as number 9 in the open era - which is very high considering how many players that there have been in the open era.

FYI if you think he is higher than 9, which of the following 8 open era players do you think have achieved less than him (Federer, Lendl, Nadal, Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Agassi)?

 

[Steve0904]

Djokovic is a GOAT candidate. I can't believe people think otherwise....

Not yet he's not. I can't believe people think otherwise.

 

[rockandroll]

I truly believe this. Just look how tough his competition was.
In every major final he had either Fed/Rafa/Murray.

For most of his majors he had to beat those guys BACK TO BACK. He doesn't get lucky breaks like Gonzo, Berdych, Soderling in finals.

I mean he is better than Rafa indoor and on HC. For the last 5 years he is even better on grass than Rafa. Since 2008, Djokovic record on grass is better than Nadal's. And he beat Nadal in W final. Not just beat, Nadal didn't even have a chance, match wasn't even close.

I think overall those guys are actually equals. Nadal a bit better on grass, but those were early years when Novak was developing. Last 5 years Nole is better. I mean give Nole Berdych in W final and he gets 2 W wins too.

Nadal has the edge on clay, but Djokovic has the edge indoor and HC.
But all things aren't created equal. HC is almost entire tennis today.

I mean even the h2h it's pretty even except on clay. Djokovic just had very tougher competition. Every USO he had to play Fed, who is a bad matchup for him.

otudoor HC: Djokovic
grass: about even considering last 5 years
clay: Rafa
indoor HC : Djokovic

So, those guys are pretty equal considering Djokovic had tougher competition overall. I don't know why he was experimenting with his racket and his serve to prolong his development.

May point is that Djokovic is underrated and him and Rafa are equals.

ROTFL at most of this. Djokovic did play Berdych at the same Wimbledon which Nadal won, and got his *** handed to him in straight sets. Djokovic is better on grass since 2011, not since 2008, and except for 2011 Nadal has been rubbish on grass since that point. 2007-2010 Nadal on grass >>>>> any version of Djokovic on grass both in playing level, and thus far achievements.

They are not equally good. Djokovic at his pet slam has only half the titles Nadal has at his, and it is by far the least important of the 4 slams. Nadal outside his pet slam has 5 more titles vs only 2 for Djokovic. Nadal has a better record at 3 of the 4 slams, has the career slam which Djokovic doesn, is a surface GOAT which Djokovic isnt. Djokovic has time but at this moment the two arent even close. Nadal and Federer are way closer than Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[jhhachamp]

Djokovic is a great player, but on the forums he is vastly overrated in my opinion.

 

[bullfan]

Patchy? Are you kidding me? Since that he was the best player. He has 2 majors, the same as Rafa and Murray. But in consistency he owns them.

He has most finals, most weeks at nr.1, most WTF titles. When competition is the toughest and the elite plays Murray and Rafa have 0 WTF titles. I mean, come on.

And that is not even including 2011.

I thought Nadal had 3 GS since 2012 started, while Novak got 2.

 

[Steve0904]

ROTFL at most of this. Djokovic did play Berdych at the same Wimbledon which Nadal won, and got his *** handed to him in straight sets. Djokovic is better on grass since 2011, not since 2008, and except for 2011 Nadal has been rubbish on grass since that point. 2007-2010 Nadal on grass >>>>> any version of Djokovic on grass both in playing level, and thus far achievements.

They are not equally good. Djokovic at his pet slam has only half the titles Nadal has at his, and it is by far the least important of the 4 slams. Nadal outside his pet slam has 5 more titles vs only 2 for Djokovic. Nadal has a better record at 3 of the 4 slams, has the career slam which Djokovic doesn, is a surface GOAT which Djokovic isnt. Djokovic has time but at this moment the two arent even close. Nadal and Federer are way closer than Nadal and Djokovic.

The bolded is true, and I agree with your whole post. It must be said however, that there is still a pretty large gap between Nadal and Federer that some people think is much smaller than it actually is, so you'll have to forgive anyone who makes the gap seem smaller than it is in regards to Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Djokovic is a GOAT candidate. I can't believe people think otherwise....

Sure he is. I guess if you have 15 to 20 people in that club. He's 3rd in his own era, let alone all eras.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

The bolded is true, and I agree with your whole post. It must be said however, that there is still a pretty large gap between Nadal and Federer that some people think is much smaller than it actually is, so you'll have to forgive anyone who makes the gap seem smaller than it is in regards to Nadal and Djokovic.

Nadal has 5 years to overcome that gap though. My guess is that even if Nadal reaches 18 slams some goons will say his lack of a WTF (if he doesn't win one) disqualifies him.

 

[Steve0904]

Nadal has 5 years to overcome that gap though. My guess is that even if Nadal reaches 18 slams some goons will say his lack of a WTF (if he doesn't win one) disqualifies him.

Probably. There are lots of people who think Fed is "disqualified" now because Nadal "owns" him so same difference as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Nadal has 5 years to overcome that gap though. My guess is that even if Nadal reaches 18 slams some goons will say his lack of a WTF (if he doesn't win one) disqualifies him.

Not really, if Nadal wins 18, then he's the GOAT, but it's a huge, huge if. I don't think Nadal fans realize how difficult it is to win slams after 27+.

 

[Steve0904]

To be perfectly honest, this place has made me not give a damn who the "GOAT" is. I've said this before, but I'll say it again. The truth from me is that I'll always see Federer as the greatest, most skilled player I ever saw play in terms of style. Nadal could end up with more slams so he'll be more accomplished, and if he does good on him. He'll be better than Federer in the accomplishment sense.

I'll be the first to congratulate him, but Federer will always be the best I ever seen. JMO.

Of course, do not mistake this as a most talent = GOAT post. You need to have a resume worthy of it as well so it rules out "pure talent" guys like Safin, Nalbandian and a few others.

 

[Midaso240]

I disagree,I think he is overrated

 

[tkoziol]

To be perfectly honest, this place has made me not give a damn who the "GOAT" is. I've said this before, but I'll say it again. The truth from me is that I'll always see Federer as the greatest, most skilled player I ever saw play in terms of style. Nadal could end up with more slams so he'll be more accomplished, and if he does good on him. He'll be better than Federer in the accomplishment sense.

I'll be the first to congratulate him, but Federer will always be the best I ever seen. JMO.

Of course, do not mistake this as a most talent = GOAT post. You need to have a resume worthy of it as well so it rules out "pure talent" guys like Safin, Nalbandian and a few others.

This is well put and I respect this answer. One of the best posts I've seen in Goat thread. This is exactly how I feel about Safin. He's the best I've ever seen. Accomplishment records will come and go. You have to go by the eye test IMO.

Horror story example:

What if this next generation of tennis sucks as bad as everyone says it will. What if Tomic somehow gains focus/maturity and starts getting some big wins? Then due to the weak era he compiles 20 grandslams, 2 gold medals, 20 masters titles, etc.

Sounds crazy, but think about how many people could have won a grand slam if one of the big 4 wasn't in their path.... Puerta (look it up), Soderling, Berdych, Phillpousis, Gonzo, Ferrero (lost to Roddick actually, but still). This is why you can't go by achievements only. Weak era's do exist. Some even argue that Federer racked up a suspiciously large amount of titles early in his career hinting at a weak era...

The point is the eye test. Plain and simple.

 

[jg153040]

No one has mentioned that Federer/Nadal/Nole beat slam virgins Philipousis, Puerta Tsonga for their maiden GS. If Murray had benefitted from playing a non slam winner, I'd wager that Murray would be sitting on more than 5 slams now.

It's all what ifs, you can only play with the cards that you're dealt with. The (real) top 4 are assured their places in HOF. Even if Murray does not finish with at least 6 slams, he'll be remembered as one of the greats for winning the holy grail that is Wimbledon.

If Nadal and Fed is allowed to have a pet slam to inflate their slam count, then it's perfectly fine for Nole to collect more AOs in the future. He needs to watch out for Murray though, if Murray 3.0 is 100% again, I'd pencil the Scot down for at least 1x AO and 2 more Wimbledons.

You are right, I totally forgot about that. That means you start believing you are a champion sooner and gain momentum. If you lose your first slam final, it means you maybe need longer to break trough. I guess this should be noted when measuring the competition.

I mean Murray got Fed/Nadal in his first USO semi/final. With little luck Murray gets Tsonga at USO 08 and wins his major sooner. Now he has self belief and breaks trough sooner.

What would have happened if Rafa met Fed at W in 2004 first? Rafa would not have won his maiden major and beat Fed in his pet slam. So in 2005 FO things might have played out differently and Fed gaining momentum.

What if Fed lost his first W final vs Hewitt for example?

 

[jg153040]

To be perfectly honest, this place has made me not give a damn who the "GOAT" is. I've said this before, but I'll say it again. The truth from me is that I'll always see Federer as the greatest, most skilled player I ever saw play in terms of style. Nadal could end up with more slams so he'll be more accomplished, and if he does good on him. He'll be better than Federer in the accomplishment sense.

I'll be the first to congratulate him, but Federer will always be the best I ever seen. JMO.

Of course, do not mistake this as a most talent = GOAT post. You need to have a resume worthy of it as well so it rules out "pure talent" guys like Safin, Nalbandian and a few others.

Great post. I feel exactly the same way about Fed. Greatness for me is beyond just numbers. Numbers is who is better, not greater.

For me things like playing everywhere, really counts. And that you can play any shot from every position.

Sampras wasn't great at the baseline. He can't play on clay. Nadal can't play indoors. When their conditions aren't perfect, they have problems.

Nadal can amass majors in this era where anything is one style and almost like one surface. In his dimension Rafa is the best. Rafa is better on clay than Fed anywhere. So, he can amass his record with 12 RG titles and matchup advantage, I will still consider Fed the greater, while Rafa better.

I mean Fed is balanced, has 5 finals in every slam, has WTF, has medals, has blue clay, has madrid on clay, HC. And he did it where surfaces were a lot different than today against many different styles using shots from every position. In Fed's era talented guys couldn't be consistent because the field was so deep and differences in styles and surfaces were still huge.

This is how I see it: Nadal is best in the village, while Fed is last in the city. I guess it's open to interpretation. Mine is that it's better to be last in the city.

This is my opinion, not a fact and I don't care what anyone thinks.

 

[jg153040]

This is well put and I respect this answer. One of the best posts I've seen in Goat thread. This is exactly how I feel about Safin. He's the best I've ever seen. Accomplishment records will come and go. You have to go by the eye test IMO.

Horror story example:

What if this next generation of tennis sucks as bad as everyone says it will. What if Tomic somehow gains focus/maturity and starts getting some big wins? Then due to the weak era he compiles 20 grandslams, 2 gold medals, 20 masters titles, etc.

Sounds crazy, but think about how many people could have won a grand slam if one of the big 4 wasn't in their path.... Puerta (look it up), Soderling, Berdych, Phillpousis, Gonzo, Ferrero (lost to Roddick actually, but still). This is why you can't go by achievements only. Weak era's do exist. Some even argue that Federer racked up a suspiciously large amount of titles early in his career hinting at a weak era...

The point is the eye test. Plain and simple.

While I partly agree with you, a player for me still has to have some results to back it up. No the best results, but at least decent.

While I totally respect your opinion about Safin.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

This is well put and I respect this answer. One of the best posts I've seen in Goat thread. This is exactly how I feel about Safin. He's the best I've ever seen. Accomplishment records will come and go. You have to go by the eye test IMO.

Rosol is the best then :roll:

Sounds crazy, but think about how many people could have won a grand slam if one of the big 4 wasn't in their path.... Puerta (look it up), Soderling, Berdych, Phillpousis, Gonzo, Ferrero (lost to Roddick actually, but still). This is why you can't go by achievements only.

Just for your information, Ferrero did win a grand slam in 2003.
And even if guys like Soderling, Berdych, Gonzalez would have won a grand slam, what is your point exactly ? Yes they would have 1 grand slam each, that makes a huge difference for them personnally, for their career, but what difference does it make in tennis history, when you know guys like Johansson, Costa, Gaudio won a grand slam ?

 

[clayqueen]

To be perfectly honest, this place has made me not give a damn who the "GOAT" is. I've said this before, but I'll say it again. The truth from me is that I'll always see Federer as the greatest, most skilled player I ever saw play in terms of style. Nadal could end up with more slams so he'll be more accomplished, and if he does good on him. He'll be better than Federer in the accomplishment sense.

I'll be the first to congratulate him, but Federer will always be the best I ever seen. JMO.

Of course, do not mistake this as a most talent = GOAT post. You need to have a resume worthy of it as well so it rules out "pure talent" guys like Safin, Nalbandian and a few others.

The closer Rafa gets to Fed's slam count the more his fans move the goal post.

 

[tennis_pro]

Last 5 years, Murray is better than Federer on HCs. Murray is underrated. I think he and Roger Federer are equal.

Yes, a 30+ year old Federer is equal to peak Murray.

Now let's compare peak Federer to peak Murray.

Or a 30+ year old Murray to peak Federer.

 

[Chanwan]

Not really, if Nadal wins 18, then he's the GOAT, but it's a huge, huge if. I don't think Nadal fans realize how difficult it is to win slams after 27+.

It's not as hard, when your main competitors are more or less the same age as you. It would be much harder if you had great youngsters coming into their prime though. So far, we haven't. So for me, I fully expect Nadal, Djokovic and Murray to keep dividing the slams between them for another 2 years. Delpo might spoil the party a bit. After that, who knows.

 

[batz]

Yes, a 30+ year old Federer is equal to peak Murray.

Now let's compare peak Federer to peak Murray.

Or a 30+ year old Murray to peak Federer.

I dont agree with his assertion but he said the last 5 years and you've deliberately chosen to ignore that. Roger wasn't in his 30s five years ago.

 

[5555]

Djokovic without his 2011 season wouldn't be an all time great. He'd only be a very good HC specialist for his 3 AO titles.

Is it proof that Djokovic is overrated?

 

[jg153040]

Is it proof that Djokovic is overrated?

Yes, he is. I think he is better than the 6 majors suggest.

I mean he has almost the same number of weeks being nr.1 as Rafa.

He lost more major finals only because of tougher draws. Fed and Rafa often didn't have to play top 4 back to back. In four of their GS finals they didn't play champions.

Djokovic had to play Murray/Fed/Rafa in every final and he had them a lot back to back.

He was the only one who had to play Murray 2.0.

 

[Steve0904]

The closer Rafa gets to Fed's slam count the more his fans move the goal post.

I've thought that for quite a while tbh. That goal post will never move where Nadal is concerned. Rafa can have the most slams, but Federer will always be "better" to me. You just don't understand. I didn't expect you to.

Sampras, for example gets killed on these forums, but if someone thinks he's the best they've ever seen then you can't really dispute it. You can throw numbers around all you like, but greatest doesn't have to be most accomplished. In fact, you see it all the time with some Nadal fans. They've already made up their minds who's better and/or disqualified Federer from "GOAT" status because of Nadal, and that's fine, so I think I'm allowed to do it too.

 

[Incognito]

Djokovic had to play Murray/Fed/Rafa in every final and he had them a lot back to back.

He was the only one who had to play Murray 2.0.

stop lying! he played tsonga in his first major win..

 

[tkoziol]

Rosol is the best then :roll:

If you think Rosol is the best ever than more power to you. He did reach an amazing level of play. However, watching Rosol I wasn't impressed with his competition, form, or what he put on the ball (pace, spin, angle, etc.). BUT if you were, then so be it. Not too many instructors using Rosol as the example of a clean technically sound ATP FH, 2hb, volley, and serve. They DO for Safin.

Just for your information, Ferrero did win a grand slam in 2003.
And even if guys like Soderling, Berdych, Gonzalez would have won a grand slam, what is your point exactly ? Yes they would have 1 grand slam each, that makes a huge difference for them personnally, for their career, but what difference does it make in tennis history, when you know guys like Johansson, Costa, Gaudio won a grand slam ?

Correct, FO against Verkerk (had to look up that name for sure). This illustrates my point perfectly. If guys like this win a slam, then they could get a confidence boost and start getting several titles. If competition is weak and you dump a decent pro in the mix he's gonna do awesome. This does NOT reflect how good he actually is.

Put a college level player in a 12 and under USTA tournament, I guarantee you that he will destroy everyone. That doesn't make him awesome. It makes the competition weak.

In this upcoming weak era, if some player rises to the occasion he could be virtually unopposed. If he cracks off 20 GS titles I know I won't be saying he's the GOAT. Results can be misleading.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

To be perfectly honest, this place has made me not give a damn who the "GOAT" is. I've said this before, but I'll say it again. The truth from me is that I'll always see Federer as the greatest, most skilled player I ever saw play in terms of style. Nadal could end up with more slams so he'll be more accomplished, and if he does good on him. He'll be better than Federer in the accomplishment sense.

I'll be the first to congratulate him, but Federer will always be the best I ever seen. JMO.

Of course, do not mistake this as a most talent = GOAT post. You need to have a resume worthy of it as well so it rules out "pure talent" guys like Safin, Nalbandian and a few others.

I respect your opinion, good post.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Djokovic is a GOAT candidate. I can't believe people think otherwise....

Good call.