Has 4chan solved the "the big 3" debate?
- Thread starter TennisLurker
- Start date
Razer
G.O.A.T.
People who had good laugh are nowhere in life today but Novak is at the top, this tells us that to reach the top one needs to have radical beliefs which might sound crazy. Novak would not have beaten Nadal 2 times at the french if he had too much respect for Nadal like these next gens have for Big 3, so I find Novak's statement very brave and admirable. Killer aggression is needed to do good. If we think someone is superior then they will remain superior.
Last edited:
topher
Hall of Fame
I guess that’s why young Rafa and his family had to run their mouth about Roger back in the day. Oh wait….they repeatedly said Roger was better. I guess Rafa would have 35 slams if he only was more cocky.
The funny thing is Novak started winning more as he learned to speak with more tact and let his tennis do the talking. Unfortunately, his dad never learned that lesson.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Lol someone hit a nerve
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Rafa was just being magnanimous in victory when he was saying Roger was better. It is easy to praise your opponent when you are already above him (with above I mean constantly beatig him from day 1) but when you lose repeatedly, that is when the doubts creep in and you have to tell yourself that you are better and you will prevail. Rafa never was in such a position, he always had a winning h2h to Roger, he started winning slams at a younger age than Roger. On the other hand Novak was 15 slams behind Roger and 9 slams behind Rafa at one point of time. Belief is what has made him bridge the gap, when he says match was in control then it is his belief, not arrogance, the fact that someone can find it arrogant means that person feels something lke " Ohh how dare he gets the liberty to think he was in control of the match against King Rafa on clay ? ... he is not supposed to have such self belief... " ....
Shaolin
Talk Tennis Guru
They didn't highlight it intentionally. That 0 is glowing on its own.
topher
Hall of Fame
It’s not like Roger didn’t have a significant lead in slams on Rafa as well. Roger was larger than life back then.
Didn’t Novak say this after his first match against Rafa? Rafa was a 1 time slam champ. It’s not like Rafa had been slapping him around for a few years already and he needed to talk himself up.
I do think self belief is good, if somewhat overrated, but there’s no need to be arrogant or disrespectful.
Rafa didn’t need to talk himself up after losing to Novak in 2011. The solution was to adjust his tennis, not his attitude.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
He had zero business losing in 10 and 13.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
The thing with Rafa is that he always likes flying under the radar and feels more comfortable like that to bring in his optimum performance. Others are not like that, Federer and Novak are more extroverts I think so.
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
I also think this is mostly accurate for djokovic-Federer. Looking at their slam H2H:
- prior to 2008 Fed beats djokovic 100% of time (2-0 Fed)
- 2008 to 2010 the slam head to head is 2-2
- 2011 to 2012 the slam head to head is 3-2 for djokovic
- after 2012 djokovic beats fed 100% of the time (6-0 djokovic)
However, feds main issue is that he struggled massively against nadal - even when he had a massive age advantage. That’s why I never considered Fed the GOAT.
The theory is completely wrong of course for nadal. Nadal is amazing on clay throughout his whole career but on hard Court and grass he only manage to achieve for a few years the level of djokovic/fed
Last edited:
Texas Tennis Fan
Professional
Who knows no history.
initialize
Hall of Fame
Fed only struggled against Nadal prior to 2014. Fed restored his GOAThood by obliterating Nadal in every match since then
initialize
Hall of Fame
optic yellow
Legend
No they know more than no history or they wouldn't have made it as funny as they did.
Fabresque
Legend
Not really. The point is Djokovic said that Nadal isn’t unbeatable and proved it. It’s that simple.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
That chart was in my junior high school world history textbook 35 years ago.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
Too little too late IMO
If crazy shots matter for GOAThood then we should start talking about Kyrgios being GOAT
Also although with the eye test peak fed looks better than djokovic, peak fed still lost to baby nadal in Wimbledon and got destroyed on clay. So peak fed can’t be better than peak djokovic
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Nadal won their only match in 2014 (in a major), they didn't play each other in 2016 and 2018, they won a match each against each other in 2019 (both in majors), Federer won their only match in 2015, leaving only 2017 where Federer dominated Nadal 4-0 (1 in a major that was a close 5-setter, and the other 3 being one-sided matches).
initialize
Hall of Fame
By that same token, peak Nole should have never gotten destroyed in 2011 and 2015 by Fed. Plus some other matches like (in 2012 I believe?) where Fed bageled him
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
Well Federer (who is a great player in the years you listed btw) didn’t destroy Djokovic in these matches (despite one bagel). In any case what matters is the performance over a longer period instead of individual matches. A lot can happen in single matches in tennis.
Your Peak Federer had a negative head to head vs nadal. Your Peak Federer only managed to beat nadal on two occasions on clay (both were highly unusual clay courts - Hamburg and Madrid (and the latter after nadal played the longest three set match ever)). Your Peak Federer had no chance against nadal at RG. your Peak Federer somehow aged at the prime age of 27/28 when he lost all 3 grand slam finals vs nadal.
Meanwhile peak djokovic beat nadal multiple times on clay, had close matches vs Nadal at RG and beat him in three grand slam finals in a row. So maybe your peak fed is not better than 2011-2012 djokovic?
exactly. djokovic has kept winning with his crazy fitness and consistency but never had the peak level as fed did in his mid 20s. better bh and more solid that’s it, got lucky to hoard slams vs nextgen bums in his 30s
ActualTennisPlayer
Professional
I’m amazed how people can say this. Between us open 2010 and us open 2013 djokovic always made the final or semi final. His losses were only against greats like nadal, Federer and Murray. Then he had a down year in 2014 before winning 5 out of 6. After that he was injured.
Now Federer did win more titles between 2004 and 2007. But what explains that is clearly competition.
2011 to 2013 was the strongest era ever so djokovic could not win like fed. In the last years djokovic’s competition got weaker and guess what - he wins like fed. Also when Feds competition got stronger between 2008 and 2012 guess what happened - Fed didn’t win that much anymore.
Hypo Crisis
Professional
Keep telling yourself that.Djokovic is definitely not better than Federer/Nadal, just that he is the youngest of the three and that his competition in recent years is not up to par.
Of course, props for being the fittest of the three.
Djokovic had to break in through peak Fedal, then to dominate and then to decide he is not fed up of playing tennis (Federer approach). So he had the toughest path of all 3.
2011-2013 djokovic would have a hard time vs safin, roddick, hewitt and other dangerous top 10/20 players of this era. fed won less as his level declined and nadal then djokovic started peaking
vex
Legend
Different styles. That’s why they call him the Maestro. But on the flip side I wouldn’t be looking for him to do some of the stuff that Djokovic makes my jaw drop for. They’re both incredible.
The whole premise of Federer being the best is now gone. We have seen all his records we thought would hold since 2009 get broken.
So we have to rely on arguing the highest "peak" level or "concentrated dominance." Yes, we can say his playing style and trick shots are a spectacle, but is that really what peaking means?
Nadal displayed arguably the greatest concentrated dominance, and that's why he was able to make it to 22+ slam titles. For Federer, his era of concentrated dominance netted him 12 slams out of 18 attempts. But in the same number of RG entrances, Nadal won 14 slams. So Nadal's strategy to get the slam record, if one can call it that, ended up proving better than Fed's after all.
And why rely on theoretical graphs when we have Wimbledon 2019 to look at? Federer didn't seem to have as much belief as Djokovic. Even the fans were nervous for him, because we knew it was his last chance to still appear to have an insurmountable slam record or Wimbledon record. This doesn't make much sense unless both players believe, deep down, that Djokovic is better. Otherwise 40-15 doesn't happen again.
The whole point of peaking is that it can be summoned when it matters most, when devoting large amounts of focus and energy can really pay off. And the reason Federer played on after 2012 was, in part, to give himself the opportunity to peak again and stop his main rivals from beating or exceeding him. And the opportunity to finally defeat both rivals resulted in another addition to the 40-15 saga rather than the ending he knew so many were anticipating.
Sure, he was 37, so maybe he's not expected to win or everything is icing on the cake, etc. But he set the example that it is possible to win Wimbledon in the current era at age 37. By showing his rivals how long it is possible to remain competitive, he paved the way for them to be top-ranked even later potentially than he was. Was it worth it?
So we have to rely on arguing the highest "peak" level or "concentrated dominance." Yes, we can say his playing style and trick shots are a spectacle, but is that really what peaking means?
Nadal displayed arguably the greatest concentrated dominance, and that's why he was able to make it to 22+ slam titles. For Federer, his era of concentrated dominance netted him 12 slams out of 18 attempts. But in the same number of RG entrances, Nadal won 14 slams. So Nadal's strategy to get the slam record, if one can call it that, ended up proving better than Fed's after all.
And why rely on theoretical graphs when we have Wimbledon 2019 to look at? Federer didn't seem to have as much belief as Djokovic. Even the fans were nervous for him, because we knew it was his last chance to still appear to have an insurmountable slam record or Wimbledon record. This doesn't make much sense unless both players believe, deep down, that Djokovic is better. Otherwise 40-15 doesn't happen again.
The whole point of peaking is that it can be summoned when it matters most, when devoting large amounts of focus and energy can really pay off. And the reason Federer played on after 2012 was, in part, to give himself the opportunity to peak again and stop his main rivals from beating or exceeding him. And the opportunity to finally defeat both rivals resulted in another addition to the 40-15 saga rather than the ending he knew so many were anticipating.
Sure, he was 37, so maybe he's not expected to win or everything is icing on the cake, etc. But he set the example that it is possible to win Wimbledon in the current era at age 37. By showing his rivals how long it is possible to remain competitive, he paved the way for them to be top-ranked even later potentially than he was. Was it worth it?
Similar threads
