Federer needs Monte Carlo and Rome for his resume

[Third Serve]

Nadals USO 2010 is tougher than more than 2/3rds of Feds slams.

Good bait

 

[TMF]

Nadals USO 2010 is tougher than more than 2/3rds of Feds slams.

FALSE !

 

[demrle]

And what will it prove if Federer wins these titles. The answer is a big, fat nothing. Nadal is going to beat his Slam count by a minimum of 3 Slams to become the undisputed GOAT. Djokovic will likely tie his Slam count at the minimum, be ahead in head-head and beat him by many weeks at #1.

Federer will rightfully be at #3 when all their careers end which is what he deserves after behind both Nadal and Djokovic on head-to-head, backhand quality, return quality, movement, defense etc. He is better by a clear margin only on serves and a net game which don’t matter as much during these days of slow surfaces dominating the ATP calendar. Federer had a chance to be the GOAT only if he held his Slam and weeks at #1 records which now look like both have no chance of being retained by him. He was the best player in the world and that too only outside of clay from 2003-2009, but only his blinder-wearing fans could claim that he has been the best player in the world since.

Agreed wholeheartedly with almost everything you said there. Care to elaborate, why you think Nadal will end up with 3 slams more than Djokovic and become the undisputed GOAT?

 

[socallefty]

Agreed wholeheartedly with almost everything you said there. Care to elaborate, why you think Nadal will end up with 3 slams more than Djokovic and become the undisputed GOAT?

Don’t misquote me. I said that Nadal will at least get to 23 and Djokovic will likely get to at least 20. I don’t say that this will be their final Slam count. But, Nadal is 3 Slams ahead of Djokovic now, has his pet Slam at the French Open where no one seems to be able to take him to even five sets lately and they are both almost the same age. Nadal has won 6 Slams since 2017 and Djokovic has won 5 Slams - so, no reason to think that Djokovic can easily overtake Nadal.

I do think that the younger players are starting to close the gap with Djokovic and Nadal on hard courts, but Djokovic doesn’t have much competition at Wimbledon and Nadal doesn’t have much on Parisian clay. But, I can see a big server like Opelka winning Wimbledon sooner than I can imagine anyone beating Nadal at RG.

 

[demrle]

Don’t misquote me. I said that Nadal will at least get to 23 and Djokovic will likely get to at least 20.

Sorry if I misquoted you, if so, it was an honest mistake. But, purely out of curiosity, where did I actually do so?

But, Nadal is 3 Slams ahead of Djokovic now, has his pet Slam at the French Open where no one seems to be able to take him to even five sets lately and they are both almost the same age.

If we say that they are both almost the same age, wouldn't it be, by the same token, fair to say that they also have almost the same number of slams? I mean Djokovic is a year younger, but in addition to that, he turned pro a year older than Nadal. Seen cumulatively, I don't think it's a completely unsignificant difference. And while I agree that Nadal at FO is relatively speaking by far the greatest favorite, I think that Djokovic has an edge over Nadal at the other three slams seen as a whole.

Nadal has won 6 Slams since 2017 and Djokovic has won 5 Slams - so, no reason to think that Djokovic can easily overtake Nadal.

But 3 of those 6 came during by far the biggest and longest slump of Djokovic's career. Not a cyclical dip in form, mind you, but a conjuncture of physical and mental meltdowns unlikely to ever happen to him again. In other words, if we take 2018 as a reference year instead of 2017, than it's not 6-5 for Nadal, but 5-4 for Djokovic, i.e. Djokovic actually making some ground on Nadal.

But, I can see a big server like Opelka winning Wimbledon sooner than I can imagine anyone beating Nadal at RG.

To tell you the truth, I think that the field has next to no chances at winning against Nadal and Djokovic at both Wimbledon and RG. That being said, Nadal has a fairly better chance of beating Djokovic at Wimbledon than vice versa at RG, the recent beatdown notwithstanding.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

he's won what he's won. he doesn't need anything

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Oh, how sad.

fred

 

[socallefty]

@demrle
I am on record as saying that of all the tennis players I have seen in person since the Eighties, Djokovic at his best is clearly the BOAT based on my subjective ‘eye test’. However, being considered the GOAT largely depends on career accomplishments and in my opinion, Djokovic has had too many down periods for Slams (2004-2010, 2012-2014, 2H2016-1H2018) compared to Nadal who has been more consistent. Djokovic seems like a certifiable nutcase with many of the comments he makes about new-age stuff (water purification through emotions, placing bread on his stomach showed his gluten sensitivity, no-vax, energy pyramids, peace and love through hugging etc.) and it makes me feel that he can easily get enthralled by another conman like Pepe in the future also and waste future years of his career like in 2016-2017. Every Slam that he wastes like the recent USO where he got defaulted is not going to be a Slam he can easily gain back as he tries to overtake Nadal. Nadal is merciless about winning every Slam that he can when he is in good health and doesn’t have top-level competitors in front of him in semis/finals outside of clay, wins RG every year and he also disposes of Thiem and the NextGen much more easily than Djokovic. So, no reason to assume that Djokovic can easily make up the 3-Slam advantage that Nadal still has.

 

[skaj]

Clay is a specialist surface. Hard court is a neutral surface that comprises most of the tour. Fed has the record in Hamburg and won two in Madrid. Fed would have won Monte Carlo and Rome on multiple occasions during his peak if not for Nadal being in the final. Nadal had numerous opportunities at the WTF against non big 3 players and failed.

And how is hard court "a neutral surface"?

 

[adil1972]

leave fed alone

he is too old to make new records

 

[Xavier G]

Federer doesn't need Rome (Italian Open) and Monte Carlo, but they would have been nice on his resume. They're quite prestigious, or have been, so they're a boost to a player's CV.

Fed has won 1 French Open, 4 Hamburg (German Open) and 2 Madrid Masters, plus he's made many clay court finals. The guy can play on clay, but other surfaces give him a better chance of winning big prizes.

Rafa hasn't won the Shanghai Masters. He was runner-up in 2009 to Davydenko and in 2017 to Fed.

Nadal doesn't necessarily need the Shanghai Masters, Miami Masters, Paris Masters or the ATP Finals either, but to date, he hasn't won them.

 

[demrle]

Djokovic seems like a nutcase with many of the comments he makes about new-age stuff (water purification through emotions, placing bread on his stomach showed his gluten sensitivity, no-vax, energy pyramids, peace and love through hugging etc.) and it makes me feel that he can easily get enthralled by another conman like Pepe in the future also and waste future years of his career like in 2016-2017.

Djokovic's 2016-2017 was in my eyes by far the biggest slump that any of the three had, so much so that I was absolutely certain that he wasn't coming back from that. I doubted his return much more than I doubted those of Federer and Nadal at any point, including current Federer's injury at the tender age of 39. Were such slump to happen again, I would even say that his chances of catching Nadal are flat out zero. But I don't believe that it will happen again, not nearly to that extent anyway. And as skeptical as I am personally of many of the Djokovic's unconventional methods, some of them seem to work for him, for the most part.

However, being considered the GOAT largely depends on career accomplishments and in my opinion, Djokovic has had too many down periods for Slams (2004-2010, 2012-2014, 2H2016-1H2018) compared to Nadal who has been more consistent.

I'm not sure about 2004-2010. Nadal turned pro in 2001 and won his first FO in 2005 at 19. Djokovic on the other hand turned pro in 2003 and turned 19 in 2006. So I wouldn't consider Djokovic's 2004-2005 relevant in this context, unless we want to call Nadal's 2002-2004, or at least his 2003-2004, a down period as well. But I think that it would be too harsh. As for 2005-2010, sure, Djokovic didn't make a complete breakthrough. Federer and Nadal were just that much better. Federer was obviously in his very prime. As for Nadal, additionally to being a year older (two in pro-tennis years) than Djokovic, he seemed to have matured at a younger age. We might however see a reversal of that at the respective ends of their careers. All things being equal, wouldn't it be logical to expect Nadal to also enter his decline 1-2 years before Djokovic.

As for 2012-2014, I don't consider it to be a down period for Djokovic at all. I mean, he won 3 GS during that time and played 5 more finals (I agree that it's not optimal to lose so many finals, but is it better to reach a final and lose it or not to reach it in the first place). Murray had one of the two peaks of his career during that period. And after all, Nadal won only one more GS than Djokovic during that period, 4 that is, while reaching just two more finals.

So, no reason to assume that Djokovic can easily make up the 3-Slam advantage that Nadal still has.

For me, Djokovic being a bit younger and less spent accounts for the advantage that Nadal currently has. I'm not advocating that Djokovic will overtake Nadal, just that they are actually very comparable at these junctures in their careers.