5 titles, 7 finals is way above 4 titles and 10 finals with 3-3 h2h, ok
Djokovic won 12/18 Slams from 2018 Wimbledon to 2023 US open
he had 7-13 and 4-6 vs baby muzza and rafa in his own era. 04-09! 9-5 vs nole, so 20-24 vs baby big4 in own era.
So? Djokovic at one point only won 2 slams in 10 attempts. And he wasn't in his 30's when that happened either.
5 consecutive USO's is insane no matter how you put it.
True, but Novak has 4 more AO titles than Federer, and 2 more FO even though Fed was a top player before Rafa started winning there. Roger has 1 more USO and Wimbledon titles. Also, Roger had a great year in 17, helped by the mostly absence of the top two players of 16 Murray and Novak, due to injuries.
Djokovic won 17/32 of Slams entered from 2015-2023 or 53.1%, so his streak above 50% was longer. He won 23/48 from 2011-2023 or 48% so he was close to 50% across 12 years.
What about wimbledon 2008, it would have meant that Nadal could not beat Federer off clay during his peak years.
It wouldn't make Nadal drop one full level from a Calendar Slam winner to a Sampras-type player (winning several Slams but never completing the whole set).
Maybe, but it doesn’t matter because since he did when RG, he isn’t in that tier and his surface versatility (it was his bad luck to have to play prime Nadal on clay, Djokovic is only slightly better than fed on clay, worse at peak) is better than Nadal’s who heavily relied on RG while Fed dominated the other 3 slams in his peak, but admittedly yes, RG is a bit of a gap in his resume but I think that is a bit situational.
i could see arguments that losing AO '12 to Nadal (given the matchup advantage, h2h momentum, favorable conditions of best event, in-match level gap, and being an ATG in prime) would be damning for Djokovic's GOAT case, or that losing RG '10 to Soderling would be damning for Nadal
Novak was not out in 2017 due to injury, he was clowning around with Pepe for whatever reason. Sure result was the same but it was his own decision. He only had this elbow injury which cost him the USO but since Fed did not win the USO it is moot anyways. As for Murray: Injured or not would not have made a difference. Fed always beat Murray at slams, Murray would not have stopped him from winning his two slams in 2017. Mighty Mischa Zverev stopped Murray at the AO, imagine he would have made it through to meet Fed.
Yeah, Murray put it all in 2016. He was what the people would call ''a bum'' after 2016.
I would say losing Wimbledon 2019 would have been pretty damning too, certainly for his grass credentials at the very least.
Novak at his absolute peak lost to Stan at the AO. Similar to Nadal's loss against Sod in FO 2009 however, I think that this loss does not hurt him as much as a loss against a fellow GOAT-candidate like Nadal would have done (likewise the Sod loss did not hurt Nadal as much as a loss against Fed would have hurt him). Fans are easy to write such losses against inferior players off to bad form etc. However, losing AO 2012 would actually only mean he has 9 AOs instead of 10 and he brutally avenged the loss in 2019. Same as with Fed Wimbledon 2008 it hurts more indirectly in the sense that it would have strenghten Nadal's case. Beating Djo at his absolute peak at his favorite slam to end a losing streak against him would have been big.
This is because Fed is the only one who does not have a Double-CGS, so taking away this slam would mean he does not have a CGS. Anywho, take away 2008 Wimbledon from Nadal would mean Nadal could not conquer Fed at Wimbledon, goes down 3-0 and only wins his elusive one when some lower player upsets Fed like Berd in 2010 after Fed gets bored after winning 7 in a row. Would be damning for his career in the sense that one of his biggest arguments/assets (especially since being outside clay) would disappear.
There's no such thing in tennis
I seriously want to know what your definition is to come to that conclusion. First of all on clay he is definitely way below Nadal (and others) in peak level. On the other surfaces he may have a case, but so do multiple others. Fed (and Djokovic) do not have ANY surface where they have such a great case that their peak level is the highest as Nadal has on clay and even here, as far as only peak level is concerned, it is not such a clear cut with Borg.
There is. Federer's domination (outside of RG ofc lol) during the years Nadal were flabbergasting in level. You could argue that he won against mugs but if that level of domination isn't "greatest peak career" I don't know what is.
He lost slam semis at AO 2005 and FO 2005 against Safin and Nadal. The streak you are talking about started at Wimbledon 2005 and went until AO 2010.
Losing AO 2019 would be pretty damning, especially when Nadal was on his last legs on HC.
2008-14 Nadal was 12-3 against Federer/Djokovic at Slams. That might as well be the highest peak. Or Novak's 2015-16 NCYGS and 2011 winning streak. Or Laver's CYGS. Or Sampras' 6 consecutive YE#1. Or Borg's 11 Slams in 27 attempts. Or McEnroe's 1984 score 82-3.
All Big3 have a good claim at highest peak, and so do Laver, Borg, Sampras, McEnroe.
Only one of them has a good claim at the best career:
But not enough to make them drop a full tier from having a career calendar Slam to having a major flaw in your resume (compared to the others).
When it comes to best career, how much money or fame does a player need to have had the greatest career? Both Novak and Rafa have made way more than enough money to live very comfortable lives without earning another dollar for the rest of their and their families lives. Therefore, overall, Novak has had the best career of the big three, then Rafa, then Roger.
Having the best 5 year stretch doesn’t mean you have the highest peak. You by far don’t need the highest level of all times to beat the Roddicks and Hewitts of this world. When Fed reaches 18/19 finals it is more a testimony to his consistency than to his incredibly peak.
Nadal was next to untouchable on clay. He basically won every clay tournament he enter and went on a tear by winning 81 consecutive matches on clay.
