Federer v Djokovic: Reframing the "GOAT" debate

[Fedfan34]

A common argument against Federer's "GOAT"ness is his record against Rafa Nadal, his "greatest" rival. How can a player be the best ever if he loses almost twice as often to his biggest threat?

Generally Federer fanatics make a number of fantastic excuses to combat this point, emphasizing the high number of clay court battles, Nadal being left handed creating "match up" issues etc.

The purpose of this thread is basically to reframe this entire premise that Rafa is Federer's greatest rival. Could one not argue that in fact Djokovic is Federer's greatest rival? They have played the same number of times (29) as Federer has played Nadal and in a shorter period of time (2007 to present versus 2004 to present). Not to mention they have played more grand slam matches (11 v 10) and have played against each other at all 4 grand slam tournaments. And oh yeah, Federer has a winning record

Nadal and Djokovic are roughly a year apart, so attempts at saying that Djokovic is part of a different era are doomed to failure, because if this is the case, Nadal is also part of a different era, and therefore his positive record against Federer can't really be held against Federer.

 

[90's Clay]

Nadal and Nole have taken quite a few slams away from each other.

Fed-Nadal on the other hand has been completely one sided (with Fed only being able to grab 2 wins and before Nadal became an all surface player) and even outside of slams the majority of Fed's wins only coming from indoors

 

[DropShotArtist]

This is definitely a point to consider especially considering that at peak level of play, Djokovic > Nadal. In other words, it really just serves to emphasize the matchup issue that Federer has with Nadal.

 

[NatF]

Nadal and Nole have taken quite a few slams away from each other.

Fed-Nadal on the other hand has been completely one sided (with Fed only being able to grab 2 wins and before Nadal became an all surface player) and even outside of slams the majority of Fed's wins only coming from indoors

4 out of 10 isn't a majority, 12 of 19 is a majority e.g. Nadal's wins on clay.

Nadal was making finals on grass and winning hardcourt masters during the period you talk about it. I find it odd how on the one hand posters like you complain about surface homogenisation yet on the other you say Nadal was a one surface player. Surely if he was a beast on clay and surfaces are so alike he should have been able to play on other surfaces?

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Roger Federer is as close as one can get to a tennis GOAT.

Unless we are talking about TW forum member players, there isnt a perfect tennis player. So we have to make do with some imperfections...like Roger's H2H against Nadal, etc.

 

[underground]

If Djokovic racks up to 10 slams and maybe actually surpassing Rafa in the slam count. Then Djokovic could be seen greater than Rafa (if he gets RG and another Wimbly), seeing how Djokovic is such a good player on slow courts and definitely adapting better at fast courts than Rafa. Then Djokovic becomes a part of the GOAT debate, kicking Rafa out of the equation. Fed wins. :twisted:

Nice thread though, never actually though of this before.

 

[TMF]

A common argument against Federer's "GOAT"ness is his record against Rafa Nadal, his "greatest" rival. How can a player be the best ever if he loses almost twice as often to his biggest threat?

Generally Federer fanatics make a number of fantastic excuses to combat this point, emphasizing the high number of clay court battles, Nadal being left handed creating "match up" issues etc.

The purpose of this thread is basically to reframe this entire premise that Rafa is Federer's greatest rival. Could one not argue that in fact Djokovic is Federer's greatest rival? They have played the same number of times (29) as Federer has played Nadal and in a shorter period of time (2007 to present versus 2004 to present). Not to mention they have played more grand slam matches (11 v 10) and have played against each other at all 4 grand slam tournaments. And oh yeah, Federer has a winning record

Nadal and Djokovic are roughly a year apart, so attempts at saying that Djokovic is part of a different era are doomed to failure, because if this is the case, Nadal is also part of a different era, and therefore his positive record against Federer can't really be held against Federer.

To say Roger is in a different era always was a failure. They all playing against each other and with the same field. The difference is Roger's prime years are different from them. Even Nole's prime years are not even parallel with Nadal despite only 1 year apart. These top players should be compare to another generation like Sampras/Agassi/Rafter/Goran or Lendl/Mac/Wilander/Edberg.

 

[Fiji]

A common argument against Federer's "GOAT"ness is his record against Rafa Nadal, his "greatest" rival. How can a player be the best ever if he loses almost twice as often to his biggest threat?

Generally Federer fanatics make a number of fantastic excuses to combat this point, emphasizing the high number of clay court battles, Nadal being left handed creating "match up" issues etc.

The purpose of this thread is basically to reframe this entire premise that Rafa is Federer's greatest rival. Could one not argue that in fact Djokovic is Federer's greatest rival? They have played the same number of times (29) as Federer has played Nadal and in a shorter period of time (2007 to present versus 2004 to present). Not to mention they have played more grand slam matches (11 v 10) and have played against each other at all 4 grand slam tournaments. And oh yeah, Federer has a winning record

Nadal and Djokovic are roughly a year apart, so attempts at saying that Djokovic is part of a different era are doomed to failure, because if this is the case, Nadal is also part of a different era, and therefore his positive record against Federer can't really be held against Federer.

Exactly.

Federer actually had two great rivals. Another reason why he is ahead of Sampras..

 

[Cup8489]

The reason Rafa has been seen as the greater rival is the longevity of the rivalry (9 years and counting), as well as the level of play both men have reached against one another (Rome 2006, Wimbledon 2007 & 2008, AO 2009), whereas Federer and Djokovic haven't ever really had that one DEFINING match (such as Wimbledon 2008 was).

Likewise, their matches are always a contrast of play, with Rafa defending against Federer's offense. In the Federovic rivalry, it's a heavyweight match with both men playing the shotmaker role.

It's entertaining, but doesn't have that one defining match for me.

 

[Fedfan34]

The reason Rafa has been seen as the greater rival is the longevity of the rivalry (9 years and counting), as well as the level of play both men have reached against one another (Rome 2006, Wimbledon 2007 & 2008, AO 2009), whereas Federer and Djokovic haven't ever really had that one DEFINING match (such as Wimbledon 2008 was).

Likewise, their matches are always a contrast of play, with Rafa defending against Federer's offense. In the Federovic rivalry, it's a heavyweight match with both men playing the shotmaker role.

It's entertaining, but doesn't have that one defining match for me.

US Open 2010, French Open 2011, US Open 2011, and Wimbledon 2012 say hi.

I'd even say US Open 2008 qualifies. That year, like 2011, was one where the "experts" were saying Fed was done and dusted because of losses to other top players, and like 2011, Fed showed that he still had the magic. On the other hand, in 2008, as in 2011, Djokovic had defeated Federer soundly in a grand slam earlier in the year, and expectations were on him to cause a changing of the guard.

 

[forzamilan90]

I don't think Djokovic can be Federer's greatest rival in terms of what the rivalry represents since the Nadal thing was just more pronounced (happened when Fed was still younger, there was the polar difference between the two, they were the two dominating forces in tennis, etc.), but Djokovic could very well be the "strongest" rival player Federer faced when it's all said and done. Djokovic looks likely to surpass Nadal's weeks at number 1, already has 2 WTFs, and is on track to reach double digit majors, not to mention matches up excellently vs pretty much all on current surfaces, and could be argued to have higher peak level than Nadal.

 

[djokovic2008]

US Open 2010, French Open 2011, US Open 2011, and Wimbledon 2012 say hi.

I'd even say US Open 2008 qualifies. That year, like 2011, was one where the "experts" were saying Fed was done and dusted because of losses to other top players, and like 2011, Fed showed that he still had the magic. On the other hand, in 2008, as in 2011, Djokovic had defeated Federer soundly in a grand slam earlier in the year, and expectations were on him to cause a changing of the guard.

I must agree all of those matches could be considered as big matches along with RG12 and A011.

 

[mattennis]

If Djokovic ends 2013 as Nº1 (and I think he will) it will be his third consecutive Year_End_Nº1.

Since the start of computed ATP rankings ( 1973 ) only the following players have ended three (or more) consecutive years as Nº1:

Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.

We are talking about a great achievement here, to be the best player of the world in each of three consecutive years. It could more or less "define" a "Djokovic era".

 

[Cup8489]

US Open 2010, French Open 2011, US Open 2011, and Wimbledon 2012 say hi.

I'd even say US Open 2008 qualifies. That year, like 2011, was one where the "experts" were saying Fed was done and dusted because of losses to other top players, and like 2011, Fed showed that he still had the magic. On the other hand, in 2008, as in 2011, Djokovic had defeated Federer soundly in a grand slam earlier in the year, and expectations were on him to cause a changing of the guard.

But none of them define the rivalry. Wimbledon 2008 is the perfect microcosm of Fedal.

 

[djokovic2008]

If Djokovic ends 2013 as Nº1 (and I think he will) it will be his third consecutive Year_End_Nº1.

Since the start of computed ATP rankings ( 1973 ) only the following players have ended three (or more) consecutive years as Nº1:

Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.

We are talking about a great achievement here, to be the best player of the world in each of three consecutive years. It could more or less "define" a "Djokovic era".

Without doubt the great 2011 season was the start of the Djokovic era, and with the winning streaks he puts to together these days he should be number one for a while yet. Only nadal is someone who can be consistent for long periods of time with his clay dominance to challenge djoker for number one as murray, del potro and tsonga win here and there but not in big periods.

 

[Fedfan34]

But none of them define the rivalry. Wimbledon 2008 is the perfect microcosm of Fedal.

You're starting to lose me. Doesn't every match "define" a rivalry? Player A has this type of playing style, player B plays another way. When the two play against one another, we have a "microcosm" of their rivalry every time, do we not?

With Federer v Novak, we have the best server (at least in the top 10) playing the best returner (probably of all time). We have the best forehand v. the best backhand, the best all court game v. the best back court game. And usually when they meet, they both bring out the best in each other. Ultimately, at least for me, Federer v Djokovic is far more entertaining to watch, regardless of outcome, than Federer v Nadal.

 

[Cup8489]

You're starting to lose me. Doesn't every match "define" a rivalry? Player A has this type of playing style, player B plays another way. When the two play against one another, we have a "microcosm" of their rivalry every time, do we not?

With Federer v Novak, we have the best server (at least in the top 10) playing the best returner (probably of all time). We have the best forehand v. the best backhand, the best all court game v. the best back court game. And usually when they meet, they both bring out the best in each other. Ultimately, at least for me, Federer v Djokovic is far more entertaining to watch, regardless of outcome, than Federer v Nadal.

Not necessarily. I don't think anyone would consider Federer's 6-3, 6-0 trouncing of Rafa in 2011 WTF a typical match of their rivalry. In contrast, I'd consider Wimbledon 2008 absolutely a typical match of their rivalry, albeit at a much higher level of play.

 

[TCG]

Not necessarily. I don't think anyone would consider Federer's 6-3, 6-0 trouncing of Rafa in 2011 WTF a typical match of their rivalry. In contrast, I'd consider Wimbledon 2008 absolutely a typical match of their rivalry, albeit at a much higher level of play.

You can count US open 2010, 2011 as defining matches too with higher level of play. Both were highly competitive unlike Fedal rivalry where except for Wimb 2007,08 no other match at slams was close. Fed-Djoker produced many classics at majors unlike Fedal.

 

[Zildite]

Seems kinda complicated, but just going by slams, since they are where its at...
If your greatest rival only had one slam and was clearly the number 3 guy until 2+ years ago , at which point you were well out of your prime it doesn’t sound that great. But it is more of a rivalry in the traditional sense since the h2h is more even and it’s harder to pick, back and forth winners.
Fed/Nadal is ‘great’ since they met in so many finals and arguably had more memorable matches (so many SF meetings for Fed/Djok is not quite so dramatic) but in the end the results are one sided.
Fed/Djok @ USO and Fed/Nadal @ Wimbledon are both strong rivalries I guess.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djokovic-Federer is a rivalry that mainly takes place in Federer's post-prime years.

 

[NEW_BORN]

^^^ Agreed

Pre-prime rivals - Nalbandian, Hewitt
Prime rivals - Nadal, Roddick
Post-prime rivals - Djokovic, Murray

 

[フェデラー]

Just my 2 cents

I don't think Federer was ever supposed to be rivals with Djoker and Nadal. They are nowhere close to him in age. Look at all other great rivalries in history and you'll see that the ages of the two players are usually very close.

For example, Sampras and Agassi are 41 and 42 respectively.
Lendl and McEnroe are 54, and 53.
Borg and McEnroe are 56 and 54.

When you look at Roger, who is 31, Rafa who is 26, and Nole who is 25, that is almost a 6 year age gap. Roger's true contemporaries are Roddick (who could have been a great rival but floundered) as well as Nalbandian, Davydenko, and Hewitt. Nalbandian and Hewitt used to trash Roger back in the day but once he hit his prime he defeated them quite easily. The problem is that their styles didn't phase Roger and I don't think they had it in them to be as great of champions as he was or as Rafa and Novak.

I think it's really hard to compare two players who differ so greatly in age (Federer and Rafa or Federer and Novak). Now Roger has such staying power that he has gone through a whole other generation of tennis players really, and he continues to do so well even at this age, but his H2H will show that he continues to rack up losses.

 

[The_Order]

From 2004-2007 Federer played in 4 slam finals against Nadal and 1 slam semi.

During that period he played against Roddick in 3 slam finals, 1 semi final and 1 quarter final.

Against Hewitt it was 1 slam final, 2 semi finals, 1 quarter final and 1 4th round match.

These were his peak rivals. Despite the age, these are the guys that were there to contend against him. He owned 2 of them but got owned by 1 of them.

Nadal hasn't been owned by any of his main rivals in the slams. He holds a leading h2h against Federer, Djokovic, Soderling and Murray at the majors.

 

[Nitish]

Just my 2 cents

I don't think Federer was ever supposed to be rivals with Djoker and Nadal. They are nowhere close to him in age. Look at all other great rivalries in history and you'll see that the ages of the two players are usually very close.

For example, Sampras and Agassi are 41 and 42 respectively.
Lendl and McEnroe are 54, and 53.
Borg and McEnroe are 56 and 54.

When you look at Roger, who is 31, Rafa who is 26, and Nole who is 25, that is almost a 6 year age gap. Roger's true contemporaries are Roddick (who could have been a great rival but floundered) as well as Nalbandian, Davydenko, and Hewitt. Nalbandian and Hewitt used to trash Roger back in the day but once he hit his prime he defeated them quite easily. The problem is that their styles didn't phase Roger and I don't think they had it in them to be as great of champions as he was or as Rafa and Novak.

I think it's really hard to compare two players who differ so greatly in age (Federer and Rafa or Federer and Novak). Now Roger has such staying power that he has gone through a whole other generation of tennis players really, and he continues to do so well even at this age, but his H2H will show that he continues to rack up losses.

Best post of the thread
Its amazing to see Fed still be a factor in grand slams when all his rivals are 5-6 years younger than him.Novak will ultimately lead the H2H against roger but till 2011 it 13-6 in favor of Federer so had he retired then he would have owned Novak.

 

[The_Order]

Best post of the thread
Its amazing to see Fed still be a factor in grand slams when all his rivals are 5-6 years younger than him.Novak will ultimately lead the H2H against roger but till 2011 it 13-6 in favor of Federer so had he retired then he would have owned Novak.

Is it just as amazing as a teenage Nadal being a factor in majors when his main rivals were all 5-6 years older than him?

Actually, I'll provide some information to aid you in your opinion...


In the open era there have been 7 players who have won at least 1 major when they were in their teens:

Borg
Chang
Nadal
Edberg
Wilander
Becker
Sampras

In the open era there have been 11 players who have won at least 1 major aged 30+:

Federer
Sampras
Agassi
Ashe
Korda
Newcombe
Rosewall
Laver
Gimeno
Connors
Gomez

 

[Nitish]

Is it just as amazing as a teenage Nadal being a factor in majors when his main rivals were all 5-6 years older than him?

Actually, I'll provide some information to aid you in your opinion...


In the open era there have been 7 players who have won at least 1 major when they were in their teens:

Borg
Chang
Nadal
Edberg
Wilander
Becker
Sampras

In the open era there have been 11 players who have won at least 1 major aged 30+:

Federer
Sampras
Agassi
Ashe
Korda
Newcombe
Rosewall
Laver
Gimeno
Connors
Gomez

Yes it was probably a bit more amazing because of the way he beat prime fed(prime fed was the highest level of tennis i have seen).But except sampras and agassi the rest of the guys played in a era where tennis was not as physical as today and winning slams in the 30's were not that big a deal.so IMO Fed's slam in his 30's is impressive considering the fact he regained the no1 in a field that had Djoker,nadal and murray.

 

[Dark Magician]

that's why its called a 'trivalry'

 

[The_Order]

Yes it was probably a bit more amazing because of the way he beat prime fed(prime fed was the highest level of tennis i have seen).But except sampras and agassi the rest of the guys played in a era where tennis was not as physical as today and winning slams in the 30's were not that big a deal.so IMO Fed's slam in his 30's is impressive considering the fact he regained the no1 in a field that had Djoker,nadal and murray.

I'm not saying Fed's WIM12 isn't impressive, it certainly is.

But you could say the same about the guys winning in teens.

 

[The-Champ]

Pete winning a major in his teens, 20s and 30 is one of those remarkable accomplishments. Has any other player done that?

 

[The_Order]

Pete winning a major in his teens, 20s and 30 is one of those remarkable accomplishments. Has any other player done that?

Not in the open era, however Nadal has the potential, he is the only current player to have won a major in his teens and 20's.

 

[The-Champ]

Not in the open era, however Nadal has the potential, he is the only current player to have won a major in his teens and 20's.

That alone could make Pete GOAT-worthy IMO.

3
2
1

------Enter TMF with his chosen "GOAT" criterions stats------

 

[sbengte]

Pete winning a major in his teens, 20s and 30 is one of those remarkable accomplishments. Has any other player done that?

It is a great accomplishment if you consider how far apart the first and last slams were (11 years in Sampras' case ?), not because of the teens, 20s and 30s. I think Connors and Agassi's first and last slams were 11 years apart too.

 

[sbengte]

Just my 2 cents

I don't think Federer was ever supposed to be rivals with Djoker and Nadal. They are nowhere close to him in age. Look at all other great rivalries in history and you'll see that the ages of the two players are usually very close.

For example, Sampras and Agassi are 41 and 42 respectively.
Lendl and McEnroe are 54, and 53.
Borg and McEnroe are 56 and 54.

Great post ! Only the really great players can play through generations and maintain a rivalry with players from a younger generation. Another example that comes to mind is Lendl. He was 6-8 years older than Edberg and Becker and yet had a very competitive rivalry with them when he was in his late twenties and Edberg-Becker were in their early twenties.

Of course, the courts weren't super slow then making age and stamina a very important factor in trying to grind it out against younger opponents.

 

[ttwarrior1]

Lets face it, fed now vs fed 7 years ago, the fed then would win 6 2
6 1

 

[TennisLovaLova]

Djokovic-Federer is a rivalry that mainly takes place in Federer's post-prime years.

with post prime federer defeating Cvac in Paris, London, IW, etc etc
another proof that there is no federer-cvac rivalry as Fed is clearly the better player.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

That alone could make Pete GOAT-worthy IMO.

3
2
1

------Enter TMF with his chosen "GOAT" criterions stats------

Pete ain't no GOAT. No French yet.

 

[forzamilan90]

Pete ain't no GOAT. No French yet.

Yet????? ???

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Yet????? ???

There are few Sampras fans who still think Pete can come back, be an elite top player,whip djoker,naval,feeder,Murray and win slams . A few believe that Pete can serve and volley his way to a French open.

 

[Bobby Jr]

A common argument against Federer's "GOAT"ness is his record against Rafa Nadal...

Generally Federer fanatics make a number of fantastic excuses to combat this point, emphasizing the high number of clay court battles, Nadal being left handed creating "match up" issues etc.

Yet they have no need to... Federer wipes the floor with Nadal in every key metric that has been used across the last 40 years to compare players. How did the h2h even come into the discussion if not for desperate hacks who see their idol being completely dominated in wins, titles, weeks at #1 etc - the things that really matter in tennis in terms of building a legacy.

The h2h nonsense only came about for Nadal's benefit by partisan hacks.

 

[moonballs]

A common argument against Federer's "GOAT"ness is his record against Rafa Nadal, his "greatest" rival. How can a player be the best ever if he loses almost twice as often to his biggest threat?

I don't see this is reason for any doubt of who is the GOAT. Just like there is a best player in my circle of weekend warriors, there is a GOAT as long as the subjects population (open era ATP players' careers) is well defined. Fed already is the GOAT. The Nadal match up issue simply means he is not a greater GOAT (than himself).

Are there many Rafa fans thinking Rafa is already the outright GOAT? I'd think the answer is very few. Clay is Fed's weakest surface. He has only one win and lost all the other finals to various players or Rafa shouldn't matter more than the fact he won only one slam on clay. But it is a good reason for Nadal to be the clay court GOAT, which has nothing to do with Federer being the all around GOAT.

 

[Cup8489]

From 2004-2007 Federer played in 4 slam finals against Nadal and 1 slam semi.

During that period he played against Roddick in 3 slam finals, 1 semi final and 1 quarter final.

Against Hewitt it was 1 slam final, 2 semi finals, 1 quarter final and 1 4th round match.

These were his peak rivals. Despite the age, these are the guys that were there to contend against him. He owned 2 of them but got owned by 1 of them.

Nadal hasn't been owned by any of his main rivals in the slams. He holds a leading h2h against Federer, Djokovic, Soderling and Murray at the majors.

Federer was 6-8 against nadal at the end of 2007. I'd hardly call that owning. He won the 3 french open meetings with Federer, and lost the two Wimbledon meetings. 2-3 in favor of Nadal. Again, not an owning.

Rafa didn't start trouncing him more often than not until 2008 onwards, which is after what many consider his prime (i still say his prime was until shortly after AO2010)

 

[Magnetite]

If you look at 2012, and ignore 2005 - 2010, I would agree with you.

 

[Magnetite]

The more interesting argument, is who is Djokovic's greatest rival?

 

[TMF]

From 2004-2007 Federer played in 4 slam finals against Nadal and 1 slam semi.

During that period he played against Roddick in 3 slam finals, 1 semi final and 1 quarter final.

Against Hewitt it was 1 slam final, 2 semi finals, 1 quarter final and 1 4th round match.

These were his peak rivals. Despite the age, these are the guys that were there to contend against him. He owned 2 of them but got owned by 1 of them.

Nadal hasn't been owned by any of his main rivals in the slams. He holds a leading h2h against Federer, Djokovic, Soderling and Murray at the majors.

Let's do it this way. Since Nadal won his first slam in 2005, at that time to present, Federer won 13 slams and Nadal won 11 slams. I will not even go into the ranking department because Roger is also ahead. Oh, and Roger won 4 WTF and Nadal won zero. Between the two it's clear that Fed is the better player against the same entire field, which is the reason why he's more accomplished. You can have the h2h record, just like Daveydenko fans can have the h2h record against Nadal.

 

[Mike Sams]

Not sure why people care so much about the Federer-Nadal H2H. Once they're both retired, nobody's going to care about them anymore anyway. Fed fanatics will be gone from the sport, Nadal fans will have new interests and hobbies.
Just remember the facts--> Nobody ever cared about retired athletes. Nobody ever has or will care about a retired athlete.
Out of sight is out of mind. People move on with their lives and invest their interest in what's current today. Not what was.

 

[The_Order]

Let's do it this way. Since Nadal won his first slam in 2005, at that time to present, Federer won 13 slams and Nadal won 11 slams. I will not even go into the ranking department because Roger is also ahead. Oh, and Roger won 4 WTF and Nadal won zero. Between the two it's clear that Fed is the better player against the same entire field, which is the reason why he's more accomplished. You can have the h2h record, just like Daveydenko fans can have the h2h record against Nadal.

Davydenko's 5 all with Nadal because Rafa retired one of those matches. He would've lost it to anybody.

The reason Fed has better record is because he's had more prime years from 2005-present and not had the unfortunate problem of having to miss majors due to injury.

Everyone says 2008 was post prime for Fed but that's rubbish, he was 26 turning 27 ffs that's not tennis old at all it's just an excuse because you can't handle the Rafa ownage.

Here's what happened, Fed started 2008 with mono. This affected his early HC season. However, once the clay season started he was playing as good as ever and had his chances to beat Rafa in the clay Masters finals in Monte Carlo and Hamburg. But because Rafa won those, and then dominated him in RG and went on to win WIM against Fed, Fed lost his confidence.

Since he lost his confidence he had a poor second half to the season until Wawrinka helped him regain his confidence at the Olympics and he went on to win the USO.

I also like how you list the 4 WTF and don't even mention the Olympics. Is that because Federer didn't win it :grin:

Ask ANY player what they would rather have, 4 WTF or lympics and they'll say Olympics without even thinking twice about it. Fed would trade 4 WTF titles to have an Olympic singles gold.

Fed would never have regained #1 in 2009 If Nadal didn't get injured, it's not like he beat Nadal on the big stage to take it from him like Novak did in 2011...

 

[zam88]

The more interesting argument, is who is Djokovic's greatest rival?

he's beaten nadal in.. what 3 slam finals... lost to him in 2 slam finals...

he's played federer in.. what, just 1 slam final 2007 USO?

But he's had to go through federer in a TON of semifinals..


That's tough... you'd almost have to say Nadal based on their slam final confrontations (and likelihood for future slam final confrontations)...

but some of the Fedokavich semis have been of slam final quality.

 

[mightyrick]

The more interesting argument, is who is Djokovic's greatest rival?

Fabrice Santoro.

 

[TMF]

I also like how you list the 4 WTF and don't even mention the Olympics. Is that because Federer didn't win it :grin:

Fed took home the gold and silver for this country. The reason why it didn't mention it because tennis in the Olympics isn't as significant as track & field or swimming. Much like basketball...Lebron James's legacy isn't about his gold medal, but about championship rings and how his career stats compare to the past great.

Ask ANY player what they would rather have, 4 WTF or lympics and they'll say Olympics without even thinking twice about it. Fed would trade 4 WTF titles to have an Olympic singles gold.

That's crazy. WTF is rank only behind the 4 slams.

Fed would never have regained #1 in 2009 If Nadal didn't get injured, it's not like he beat Nadal on the big stage to take it from him like Novak did in 2011...

Nadal's streak is bound get snapped, just like it happened to Sampras at Wimbledon and Borg at the FO. Fed was there every year and Nadal failed to keep up. I disagree with Nadal injury...he got beat soundly by Soderling and there was no sign of his injury in that match.

And let say he was injured, that's part of tennis, and his physical playing style pay the price. His success owe for sacrificing his body, otherwise he wouldn't as accomplish. Take your pick. Fact is Nadal did play and he lost. Funny how you don't take away Nadal's 2010 USO when the defending champion Del Potro was injured(real injury) was out for that year. At least Nadal played in 2009 FO after destroying everyone until he met an on fire Soderling.

 

[The_Order]

Fed took home the gold and silver for this country. The reason why it didn't mention it because tennis in the Olympics isn't as significant as track & field or swimming. Much like basketball...Lebron James's legacy isn't about his gold medal, but about championship rings and how his career stats compare to the past great.

That's crazy. WTF is rank only behind the 4 slams.

Djokovic sawed his racquets after losing in the Olympics. He has NEVER done that after losing in WTF. Instead he comes out to matches with funny masks and eyepatches on. That's how serious he took it. Both in 2010 and 2011 Novak and Nadal respectively didn't have their heart into the WTF because they were preparing for Davis Cup finals which meant more to them.

In terms of points, yes WTF is rnaked behind the slam, but in terms of how much the players care about it, it ranks behind the Davis Cup and Olympics.

Nadal's streak is bound get snapped, just like it happened to Sampras at Wimbledon and Borg at the FO. Fed was there every year and Nadal failed to keep up. I disagree with Nadal injury...he got beat soundly by Soderling and there was no sign of his injury in that match.

And let say he was injured, that's part of tennis, and his physical playing style pay the price. His success owe for sacrificing his body, otherwise he wouldn't as accomplish. Take your pick. Fact is Nadal did play and he lost. Funny how you don't take away Nadal's 2010 USO when the defending champion Del Potro was injured(real injury) was out for that year. At least Nadal played in 2009 FO after destroying everyone until he met an on fire Soderling.

No sign of injury? LOL did you see how short Nadal's FH was? This is because he couldn't generate enough power from his legs to hit the ball deeper. Of course, you don't understand the dynamics of shot making because you don't know much about tennis, all you know about is Federer's numbers.

As for USO 2010, that's because he beat a major winner and former US finalist to win it, not a slam final virgin. Del Potro had one hot run at the US Open, don't talk like as if he is some USO GOAT like Nadal is at RG.

And of course he was injured, explain why he would pull out of Wimbledon if he wasn't injured.