How many other ATG candidates have a 3-6 Finals record at a slam on a surface they are supposed to be GOAT of?

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
They've all had setbacks. Yea he's skipped these tournaments 9 times and in that timeframe, he never skipped RG and only once withdrew. Do you think that that's a coincidence when clay has way more grueling rallies? He centered every year around clay and RG because that's where he felt he had the best chance of winning. And of course he doesn't suck off clay. He has 7 Slams and beat Federer and Djokovic multiple times.

2019 Wimbledon is just as much worth 2008 Wimbledon. Neither was a tough draw and 22 year old Nadal played against 27 year old Federer in a tight, great match. In 2019, 32 year old Djokovic played a very tight match against 38 year old Federer, a match where he was completely outplayed in 2 of the sets and over half of the match. 38 year old Federer also defeated 33 year old Nadal in 4 in the SF. So oldest Federer was better than older Nadal.
Beating 27 yo Fed at Wimbledon is far more impressive than beating 38 yo version. And Federer was better player in 19 final - same can't be said about 08 final.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
LOL I just removed my Like of your post because you added the bolded part.

Do you really think that 2008 Fed would have dropped that turkey in the 5th set in 2019?
None of them were at their peaks and at least 32+. Federer actually even played better than Djokovic. Your point falls flat on its face when you're denigrating Federer when Nadal could only take one set from him. Yea that Wimbledon more than counts. A title earned when Djokovic was double match point down.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Beating 27 yo Fed at Wimbledon is far more impressive than beating 38 yo version. And Federer was better player in 19 final - same can't be said about 08 final.
So what you're saying is it is not impressive beating a player who actually played better than you because you're both in your 30's? Lol.
 

Kralingen

Legend
So what you're saying is it is not impressive beating a player who actually played better than you because you're both in your 30's? Lol.
It is not very impressive that a 32 year old with 6 Wimbledon’s was outplayed by a 39 year old.

this is where the level of play argument comes in. Saving the MP was GOATy. But letting it get to MP was in fact not GOATy at all.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
I see your point. Djokovic was no longer at his peak in 2019. Nadal was in 2008.
Yes that's where I'm coming from. It's the worst level Djokovic played in a Wimbledon final that he won and Federer was well below his best years as well. It evens out. Nadal was 22 and at his best level.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
It is not very impressive that a 32 year old with 6 Wimbledon’s was outplayed by a 39 year old.

this is where the level of play argument comes in. Saving the MP was GOATy. But letting it get to MP was in fact not GOATy at all.
He was actually 37 and not quite 38. Let's not add years though. Lol. He also had 4 Wimbledon's at that time and Federer had 8. A guy at 32 having an off day and poor level is not something out of the ordinary.

You can't always have your best though. Winning when you don't have it is definitely GOATy though. That's what makes that win special.
 
Last edited:

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
He was actually 37 and not quite 38. Let's not add years though. Lol. He also had 4 Wimbledon's at that time and Federer had 8. A guy at 32 having an off day ans poor level is not something out of the ordinary.

You can't always have your best though. Winning when don't have it is definitely GOATy though. That's what makes that win special.
37 years and 11 months old ~ 38 yo.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
Nadal has a positive H2H against Djokovic at the USO, more titles than him, and Djokovic has a 3-6 record at the USO. This is on HC, his best surface. Nadal has a very unlucky 1-5 record at the AO, with 5 finals, outside his best surface. Do you see a pattern and some differences here? How can Nadal suck at the AO without Djokovic not sucking also at the USO? The difference is that the AO is not played on Nadal's favorite surface.
After that 2012 match, Rafa is AO legend for me. I don't know what are you talking about with that "Rafa sucks" stuff.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
That being said, there are a lot of subtleties involved. In Fed's case, Fed has a clear handicap due to his age difference with Djokovic. People used to bring this up all the time in the Fedal era, when Djokovic wasn't a factor yet. But in Nadal's case, this age difference in my view was moot, because Fed has continued playing at a very high level up to 2017 (8 years after this supposed age difference was a disadvantage), and rather than work against Fed, I imagine it would have worked for him in Nadal's case, as Nadal didn't develop on HC until a few years later.

But now, consider the age difference advantage for Djokovic vs Federer. It has obviously benefited Djokovic a lot (and I mean A LOT). The Fedal age difference argument was always hogwash, but the Fedovic age difference argument is hard to ignore. Vulturing is a very strong word, because I think Djokovic is a great player on grass,, but in my humble opinion he has been the main beneficiary of Fed's aging. The fact the 2019 Final was so close simply speaks to Federer's greatness, if anything, and should put things a little bit in context.
It's funny that the entire premise of this thread of yours is that Djokovic losing USO finals is "really bad" (your exact words) but here you are saying Fed losing that Wimbledon final showed greatness. Contradictory, eh? The only reason you can say that Novak has benefitted from his age difference with Federer and Nadal has not is because Nadal is 1-6 against Federer since 2015. It's not Djokovic's fault if Djokovic can consistently beat older Federer and Nadal can't; and it's credit to Djokovic that he can and discredit to Nadal that he can't.

Look, I might be overcompensating a little to counter the recent flurry of threads about Djokovic being undisputed GOAT, Nadal being garbage outside clay and a one-trick-pony, etc. But in essence, I truly believe what I am telling you. I still put Fed slightly (barely) over Nadal, and both of them over Djokovic. I might have an extraordinary talent to rationalize things to my advantage, but I am telling you that this is 100% how I feel.
You can feel that way but the numbers are not with you and using 3-6 in USO finals as being "really bad" is not with you either.
 

Kralingen

Legend
He was actually 37 and not quite 38. Let's not add years though. Lol. He also had 4 Wimbledon's at that time and Federer had 8. A guy at 32 having an off day ans poor level is not something out of the ordinary.

You can't always have your best though. Winning when don't have it is definitely GOATy though. That's what makes that win special.
Roflmao Federer fans always sneak in a year or two. Good on you for picking it out.

I’m just saying the obvious corollary is that when Djokovic was struggling with old Nadal and Federer at age 31/32, Fed was whooping 25 year Djokovic in 4 at 2012 Wimbledon.

I don’t give Djokovic credit for his performance in that 2019 match. I give Fed a lot of credit for his level of play.
tbf to Djoker I think he was not fully fit and was mainly running on fumes. But of course he did pull out the match when it mattered and as much as TTW hates it, to the Victor goes the spoils.

All in all Wimby 2019 is like the 17th or 18th best Slam win Djokovic has to me, so I don’t find it too relevant in terms of making a GOAT case.
 
I can't respond in detail (that will come later).
It's funny that the entire premise of this thread of yours is that Djokovic losing USO finals is "really bad" (your exact words) but here you are saying Fed losing that Wimbledon final showed greatness. Contradictory, eh? The only reason you can say that Novak has benefitted from his age difference with Federer and Nadal has not is because Nadal is 1-6 against Federer since 2015. It's not Djokovic's fault if Djokovic can consistently beat older Federer and Nadal can't; and it's credit to Djokovic that he can and discredit to Nadal that he can't.
Nadal was better at beating Prime Fed than Djokovic, and worse at doing the same to post-Prime Federer, I agree 100%. Now, do you think it is more impressive to beat Prime Fed, or to beat post-Prime Fed and make a name for yourself at Wimbledon that way?

The reason why Nadal fared worse against Fed outside clay post-Prime is because a player's prowess starts to diminish first outside his favorite surfaces. Nadal's best game outside clay is very far away. You can rationalize things any way you want, but if you look at logic and facts, 2008 WB (for example) is far more impressive than 2019 WB.

You can feel that way but the numbers are not with you and using 3-6 in USO finals as being "really bad" is not with you either.
Djokovic has a 3-6 record at the USO (HC, being his best surface). Nadal has a 7-15 record in slam finals outside clay (clay is his best surface). Yes, a 3-6 record at the USO is very lackluster, specially when Nadal, who is best on clay, beats you twice there and has more trophies than you do.
 
Last edited:

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic has the most HC slams, most AO titles by some distance, most USO finals in the open era, most HC masters by some distance, 5 YECs and multiple finals.

Djokovic knocks off any competition on HC in pretty much every single category you can find.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Roflmao Federer fans always sneak in a year or two. Good on you for picking it out.

I’m just saying the obvious corollary is that when Djokovic was struggling with old Nadal and Federer at age 31/32, Fed was whooping 25 year Djokovic in 4 at 2012 Wimbledon.

I don’t give Djokovic credit for his performance in that 2019 match. I give Fed a lot of credit for his level of play.
tbf to Djoker I think he was not fully fit and was mainly running on fumes. But of course he did pull out the match when it mattered and as much as TTW hates it, to the Victor goes the spoils.

All in all Wimby 2019 is like the 17th or 18th best Slam win Djokovic has to me, so I don’t find it too relevant in terms of making a GOAT case.
31 year old Djokovic also whipped Nadal though at AO and got whooped at 33 at RG. Pretty much the same that happened to 31 year old Federer when he played Djokovic at RG and Wimbledon. The 2018 SF match is not the same as the 2019 F though because Djokovic was ranked out of the top 20 in 2018 and Nadal was #1 and the clear favorite to win that. In 2019, Djokovic was #1 and the clear favorite to win.

I don't know about that. I have a different viewpoint on that one. Relatively, Federer played at the best level of the big 3 in the SF and F and probably should have won that tournament all things considered. Djokovic really should have lost once he let his lead in the 5th slip away so that's a monumental win for his legacy and one that changed the Slam race landscape.
 
After that 2012 match, Rafa is AO legend for me. I don't know what are you talking about with that "Rafa sucks" stuff.
Relatively speaking, when discussing his HC/Grass resume compared to his clay resume.

I don't hold the skewed slam record against Nadal for several reasons:

1. Nadal has achieved things on HC that not even Fed or Djokovic have achieved, despite the lower number of slams, Masters, and no WTF.
2. Nadal has a superior USO record to Djokovic, and a positive H2H against him there.
3. If Nadal hadn't performed as well on clay, this would have resulted in less wear and tear, and more opportunities to do well outside clay. He has missed 9 non-clay slams since 2006.
4. Nadal has almost a 50% success rate in slam finals outside clay. Compare that to Djokovic's 33% USO success rate.

Obviously Nadal has an inferior record to Fed and Djokovic outside clay. But the argument that "he is worse on 2/3 surfaces" is facetious and irrelevant. At the end of the day, his otherworldly superiority at RG, compounded with his ability to produce very high peaks outside clay as well, and almost a 50% record in slam finals outside clay, makes Nadal a very firm option for overall GOAT.
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic has the most HC slams, most AO titles by some distance, most USO finals in the open era, most HC masters by some distance, 5 YECs and multiple finals.

Djokovic knocks off any competition on HC in pretty much every single category you can find.
I wonder if @Sunny014 is going to come back and start posting in this thread straight away. :unsure:
 
None of them were at their peaks and at least 32+. Federer actually even played better than Djokovic. Your point falls flat on its face when you're denigrating Federer when Nadal could only take one set from him. Yea that Wimbledon more than counts. A title earned when Djokovic was double match point down.
That is because Nadal's prime outside clay finished almost 1 decade ago. Fed and Djokovic are direct contenders outside clay, and Djokovic has benefitted like a villain from Geriatricerer. Not to mention Murray busting his hip, Nextgen sucking, etc. But I don't want to get into this, because that is exactly what allowed 2017 to happen. :love:
 
Of course, second place counts. It just doesn't count as much as first and that's where Djokovic and Federer have outshone Nadal.





Itrium and Pheasant are right on this point. Here is where we know Genious is trolling. What does this 3-6 record at the U.S. Open actually represent? Whatever it is, it is not something “really bad.” This is just 1 slam and Djokovic’s 3-6 record there of 9 finals at one major is already more major finals than any Open Era player has reached across all majors except for 12 players excluding Djokovic himself. Genious, you see the 6 losses as a negative but it’s just part of a big positive.



It's not detrimental to Nadal. 7 non-clay majors are amazing. But in a GOAT discussion, Djokovic and Federer's 18 and 19 non-clay majors, respectively, are even more amazing.



Nadal is actually 1-4 in AO finals. Funny that you stuck that "unlucky" in there showing your bias. In any case, Nadal doesn't suck at the Australian Open. 5 finals are very admirable, but again, they aren't nearly as great as what Djokovic and Federer achieved there. As for the USO, you're stuck on cherry-picking some stats without seeing the big picture and that is how they have performed overall there. Djokovic's 81-13 is a slightly higher winning percentage than Nadal's 64-11. So while Nadal has one more USO title than Djokovic, Djokovic has won 17 more matches there and has a better win rate than Nadal.



Djokovic has done the same but unlike Nadal, Djokovic has a winning head-to-head against both GOAT candidates.



Yes.



Which is fine but far, far exceeded by Djokovic and Federer on these surfaces so they counterbalance his clay GOATness.



Another fine achievement, but dwarfed by Djokovic holding all 4 major titles simultaneously, Djokovic winning every major at least twice, and Djokovic winning every Masters title at least twice. And Djokovic has spent more than 2 1/2 years at #1 than Nadal has.



One peak match here and one peak match there does not make a great argument. Sustained peaks are better and Nadal never had a season as good as Federer's 2005 and 2006 or Djokovic's 2011 and 2015 or even 2021.



Injuries are not an excuse. We don't rate del Potro higher just because his career has been plagued with injuries, far worse than Nadal has, and he could easily have achieved what Murray or Wawrinka did had he been healthy.
Good lord, do I have to reply to this inline?

1. Nadal and Djokovic are the opposite sides of the same coin. Nadal has been unfortunate in that, as he entered his peak outside clay, Djokovic came along. Djokovic's peak on HC and grass coincide with Nadal's short peak period ending, and Federer becoming just too old to defend his old turfs.

2. Yes, I see that 6 2nd Places are a good thing for Novak, but not as good as Nadal's 4 championships, on a surface which is not his best, and with a positive H2H against Djokovic there.

3. Yes, of course. In the same way, Nadal's 13 RG titles are far more impressive than Fed's 1 title and Djokovic's 2 titles, and even more so because they obtained those titles without contending Nadal at any reasonable level of play, wheras Nadal got his 2008 Wimbledon and 2013 USO beating prime versions of Fed and Djokovic.

4. Djokovic's higher number of matches won doesn't compensate for the fact he is behind Nadal in H2H and titles at the USO, it is a failure. Refer to your previous comment about "second place" counting.

5. Yes, Djokovic has a positive H2H against both Fed and Nadal, but a negative H2H against Nadal in slams, which is far more important. Also, his H2H against Fed has turned around only due to Fed's age being a huge liability.

6. Yes, I agree the NCYGS is a huge achievement, I tip my hat off to Djokovic for that, no complaints there.

7. Peaks are important because they show that Nadal has the raw talent and capability, and it explains his underperforming due to his schedule being so clay-centered.

Finally, to point out that to me Nadal's greatest demerit is the lack of a WTF. But the fact this is not a slam makes that issue a little less serious.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
That is because Nadal's prime outside clay finished almost 1 decade ago. Fed and Djokovic are direct contenders outside clay, and Djokovic has benefitted like a villain from Geriatricerer. Not to mention Murray busting his hip, Nextgen sucking, etc. But I don't want to get into this, because that is exactly what allowed 2017 to happen. :love:
Don't you see your double standard here? You're essentially saying Federer is old and useless yet Nadal cannot beat this player. When Djokovic does, it's because Federer is geriatric and Djokovic is taking advantage of weak competition. Then why didn't Nadal take advantage of this as well? Oh I forgot, his prime on grass ended when he was 25. Who's fault is that?
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Everyone really needs to stop the circle of putting down players for a few minutes and go do something nice for someone. It might make your day and theirs.
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Nadal was better at beating Prime Fed than Djokovic, and worse at doing the same to post-Prime Federer, I agree 100%. Now, do you think it is more impressive to beat Prime Fed, or to beat post-Prime Fed and make a name for yourself at Wimbledon that way?
Nadal winning in 2008 is no doubt a grand achievement, but it's just one match that you are cherry-picking without looking at the bigger picture. Overall, I would take Djokovic 3-1 record against Federer at Wimbledon over Nadal's 1-3 record against Federer there in a second. Djokovic is a far greater player at Wimbledon than Nadal is and 2008 doesn't change that. Nadal is a far greater player at Roland Garros than Djokovic (even while that obscures the fact that Djokovic is the second-best clay courter of his era), but Djokovic is also a far greater player at the Australian than Nadal. Nadal may only be a very marginally better player than Djokovic at the USO and even that is debatable.

The reason why Nadal fared worse against Fed outside clay post-Prime is because a player's prowess starts to diminish first outside his favorite surfaces. Nadal's best game outside clay is very far away. You can rationalize things any way you want, but if you look at logic and facts, 2008 WB (for example) is far more impressive than 2019 WB.
Again, just 2 matches that you cherry-pick to obscure the bigger picture. Nadal losing to post-prime Fed is a huge discredit to Nadal if you think Djokovic shouldn't get as much credit for beating a post-prime Fed. You can't have it both ways.

Djokovic has a 3-6 record at the USO (HC, being his best surface). Nadal has a 7-15 record in slam finals outside clay (clay is his best surface). Yes, a 3-6 record at the USO is very lackluster, specially when Nadal, who is best on clay, beats you twice there and has more trophies than you do.
3-6 is so lackluster at the USO that no one else in the Open Era has reached 9 USO finals! Listen to yourself. More than 99% of tennis players don't reach 1 major final, much less 9 at a single slam. Yes, Nadal has one more victory over Djokovic at the USO but with the tiny sample size of 3 matches. Yes, Nadal has 1 more trophy than Djokovic when Nadal had one of the easiest draws ever in 2017 when he didn't have to play a single player in the top 25. You want to asterisk Djokovic's wins over older Federer, why don't you asterisk Nadal's 2017 USO? I don't hold that USO win against Nadal. See, here's the thing, players get harder draws and easier draws over the course of their career. They have good days and bad days. Their opponents have good days and bad days. It all evens out in the long run or if it doesn't, the margins of difference aren't so great that it matters. That's why evaluations should be about the big picture. Anyone can cherry-pick a match here and there to prove whatever they want.

So once again, if you're going to say HC is Djokovic's best surface, then why not evaluate him on his entire hard court record instead of cherry-picking some subset to score points? Of course you don't do that because then you have to deal with this:

Djokovic has the most HC slams, most AO titles by some distance, most USO finals in the open era, most HC masters by some distance, 5 YECs and multiple finals.

Djokovic knocks off any competition on HC in pretty much every single category you can find.
 
Last edited:

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
His 07 lose was before he had a slam and his 2010 was before he was at his best.
There is no denying his F record there is poor but since it’s since it’s between him and Fed for HC goat you can make a stat that looks bad for Fed.

Fed won 5 in a row which is the best record in USO history but since then hasn’t won it again. That is since 08 which Fed was 27 and a huge 13 years ago. It’s like when people say Pete was better at Wimbledon due to too his 8-0 record compared to Fed’s 8-4 but Sampras retired at 31 and Fed had 3 of them loses to prime Nole post 31 so it’s actually better for Fed.

HC goat is both HC slams combined. Djokovic has 18 finals and 12 titles. Yes one is better than the other but would it be any better if he was 6-3 at both ?
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
Relatively speaking, when discussing his HC/Grass resume compared to his clay resume.

I don't hold the skewed slam record against Nadal for several reasons:

1. Nadal has achieved things on HC that not even Fed or Djokovic have achieved, despite the lower number of slams, Masters, and no WTF.
2. Nadal has a superior USO record to Djokovic, and a positive H2H against him there.
3. If Nadal hadn't performed as well on clay, this would have resulted in less wear and tear, and more opportunities to do well outside clay. He has missed 9 non-clay slams since 2006.
4. Nadal has almost a 50% success rate in slam finals outside clay. Compare that to Djokovic's 33% USO success rate.

Obviously Nadal has an inferior record to Fed and Djokovic outside clay. But the argument that "he is worse on 2/3 surfaces" is facetious and irrelevant. At the end of the day, his otherworldly superiority at RG, compounded with his ability to produce very high peaks outside clay as well, and almost a 50% record in slam finals outside clay, makes Nadal a very firm option for overall GOAT.
I understand bias can lead man to believe many extraordinary things, like that Rafa is valid GOAT contender at this very moment. You just can't make his out of clay record bigger than it is - ATG worthy, definitely - GOAT worthy, definitely not.
 
Don't you see your double standard here? You're essentially saying Federer is old and useless yet Nadal cannot beat this player. When Djokovic does, it's because Federer is geriatric and Djokovic is taking advantage of weak competition. Then why didn't Nadal take advantage of this as well? Oh I forgot, his prime on grass ended when he was 25. Who's fault is that?
This is a huge oversimplification. Nadal was challenging and beating Fed when Fed was at his prime, Then, Nadal became old (just as Fed), and the first part of his game to deteriorate was grass, then HC. Djokovic wasn't beating prime Fed, it was only after Fed became old that Djokovic had success against him. Nadal can't benefit from old Fed because Nadal's HC and grass game have suffered too as a consequence of age. Djokovic had some great timing, but you can't fault him. And since Fed was his main contender in 3 slams, the benefits of that triplicated. He is a very fortunate tennis player. I don't see Djokovic having this type of career if he had been Fed's age, whereas Nadal would have fared just as well.
 
I understand bias can lead man to believe many extraordinary things, like that Rafa is valid GOAT contender at this very moment. You just can't make his out of clay record bigger than it is - ATG worthy, definitely - GOAT worthy, definitely not.
It is absolutely GOAT worthy. Because his record on clay is lights years away, and he is competitive (and even superior to Djokovic at the USO) outside. Clay is only 1 slam out of 4, and Nadal is tied in the slam race.

You are a victim of recency bias. As I said, Nadal's prime in grass and HC is very far away, even farther than Fed's.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
It is absolutely GOAT worthy. Because his record on clay is lights years away, and he is competitive (and even superior to Djokovic at the USO) outside. Clay is only 1 slam out of 4, and Nadal is tied in the slam race.

You are a victim of recency bias. As I said, Nadal's prime in grass and HC is very far away, even farther than Fed's.
Oh man, this mumbo jumbo is @Beckerserve and @USO territory, I don't go there, it's cucu land. Sorry. :)
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
This is a huge oversimplification. Nadal was challenging and beating Fed when Fed was at his prime, Then, Nadal became old (just as Fed), and the first part of his game to deteriorate was grass, then HC. Djokovic wasn't beating prime Fed, it was only after Fed became old that Djokovic had success against him. Nadal can't benefit from old Fed because Nadal's HC and grass game have suffered too as a consequence of age. Djokovic had some great timing, but you can't fault him. And since Fed was his main contender in 3 slams, the benefits of that triplicated. He is a very fortunate tennis player. I don't see Djokovic having this type of career if he had been Fed's age, whereas Nadal would have fared just as well.
You still don't see the faultiness in this line of thought. You're saying Nadal challenged and beat Federer in his prime and Djokovic did not, which is false, and saying this proves Nadal is the best. Then in the same paragraph you are saying, pay no attention to those losses in his 30's to Federer and Djokovic because he was just old like Federer and this proves this nothing. Lol. Well old Federer was winning. So you can't say his level was the best in one sentence and then turn around and want someone to omit those later losses to the player you are calling geriatric.

Truth is, Nadal at 30 and a half lost to Federer at 35 and a half at 2017 AO. 32 year old Nadal lost to 31 year Djokovic at 2018 Wimbledon and 2019 AO. 33 year old Nadal lost to 38 year old Federer at 2019 Wimbledon. That's 0-4 at Wimbledon and AO in his 30's to fellow 30 year old players. So he had all these losses yet you want to pretend like they don't matter because he was "past it" while losing to someone 5 years older than himself. So if Federer was so old, past it and could be taken advantage of, why was Nadal's window of great level of play so short where he could not play a level capable of beating him?
 

Kralingen

Legend
You still don't see the faultiness in this line of thought. You're saying Nadal challenged and beat Federer in his prime and Djokovic did not, which is false, and saying this proves Nadal is the best. Then in the same paragraph you are saying, pay no attention to those losses in his 30's to Federer and Djokovic because he was just old like Federer and this proves this nothing. Lol. Well old Federer was winning. So you can't say his level was the best in one sentence and then turn around and want someone to omit those later losses to the player you are calling geriatric.

Truth is, Nadal at 30 and a half lost to Federer at 35 and a half at 2017 AO. 32 year old Nadal lost to 31 year Djokovic at 2018 Wimbledon and 2019 AO. 33 year old Nadal lost to 38 year old Federer at 2019 Wimbledon. That's 0-4 at Wimbledon and AO in his 30's to fellow 30 year old players. So he had all these losses yet you want to pretend like they don't matter because he was "past it" while losing to someone 5 years older than himself. So if Federer was so old, past it and could be taken advantage of, why was Nadal's window of great level of play so short where he could not play a level capable of beating him?
They’re going to use the “Rafa was 40 in tennis years” excuse lol. I mean we can admit that Rafa lost a step post 2014 and that it’s a shame, but by the same token we must praise Djokovic and to a lesser extent Federer for preserving themselves in a better way.
 

Jason Swerve

Hall of Fame
They’re going to use the “Rafa was 40 in tennis years” excuse lol. I mean we can admit that Rafa lost a step post 2014 and that it’s a shame, but by the same token we must praise Djokovic and to a lesser extent Federer for preserving themselves in a better way.
In tennis years. Ha!
 

BauerAlmeida

Professional
US Open is Djokovic's THIRD best slam. And nobody calls him a GOAT on that surface. He's the GOAT at the AO where he is 9-0.

You will find a lot of players that do worse than Djokovic did at the USO at their THIRD best slam. Not in finals because they lost earlier.
 
You still don't see the faultiness in this line of thought. You're saying Nadal challenged and beat Federer in his prime and Djokovic did not, which is false, and saying this proves Nadal is the best. Then in the same paragraph you are saying, pay no attention to those losses in his 30's to Federer and Djokovic because he was just old like Federer and this proves this nothing. Lol. Well old Federer was winning. So you can't say his level was the best in one sentence and then turn around and want someone to omit those later losses to the player you are calling geriatric.

Truth is, Nadal at 30 and a half lost to Federer at 35 and a half at 2017 AO. 32 year old Nadal lost to 31 year Djokovic at 2018 Wimbledon and 2019 AO. 33 year old Nadal lost to 38 year old Federer at 2019 Wimbledon. That's 0-4 at Wimbledon and AO in his 30's to fellow 30 year old players. So he had all these losses yet you want to pretend like they don't matter because he was "past it" while losing to someone 5 years older than himself. So if Federer was so old, past it and could be taken advantage of, why was Nadal's window of great level of play so short where he could not play a level capable of beating him?
I think that your interpretation of the facts is quite skewed.

This matter is quite simple: Nadal achieved 9 slams while he was competing against prime Fed, and Novak only achieved 1. Then, he has accrued another 11 slams after Djokovic turned prime.

Djokovic was never able to deal with prime Fed, accruing a single lucky slam before Fed turned 30 where he got away playing the final against ATG Tsonga. Djokovic basically should be locked up for abusing the elderly, it is insane how much he has benefitted from Fed's decline.

The fact Nadal hasn't vultured from Federer like Djokovic is simply a result that Nadal's prime on grass finishing a long time ago, for obvious reasons. Have you ever wondered why the Channel Slam is such an achievement, beyond the fact that is is played on two very disparate surfaces?

Djokovic doesn't have any control over this, I am not claiming he should be blamed for vulturing. I'm just putting things in context. And no, the 2019 WB is not worth the same as the 2008 WB. Not even close.
 
Oh man, this mumbo jumbo is @Beckerserve and @USO territory, I don't go there, it's cucu land. Sorry. :)
I am sure it is mumbo jumbo to you, but anyone impartial enough can agree that 27 year old Fed and 38 year old Fed are not the same beast. Also, anyone can see clearly that Nadal earned 9 slam titles during Fed's prime period, whereas Djokovic has earned 90% of his slams in his post prime era. These are simple facts, and allow little margin for creative interpretation.
 
Honestly, at least Djokovic managed to vulture Slams against much older Federer.

Nadal got spanked at the AO 2017 and Wimb 2019 by an extremely old man.
At the 2017 Nadal didn't get spanked, it was a very narrow win by Fed, and one that I enjoyed. But the point is that Nadal didn't need to vulture 90% of his slams from an older guy. History puts everything in perspective. That is why there is a movie about the 2008 Final, and there will never be a movie about the 2019 Final or any of the other finals Djokovic has been in.
 
They’re going to use the “Rafa was 40 in tennis years” excuse lol. I mean we can admit that Rafa lost a step post 2014 and that it’s a shame, but by the same token we must praise Djokovic and to a lesser extent Federer for preserving themselves in a better way.
Yes, Djokovic preserved himself better because Nadal already had won 9 slams by the time Djokovic had 1, during Fed's prime. Also, a player's decline is steeper at their worse surfaces first. As I said earlier, Djokovic bears no moral responsibility for doing this, he had no choice but to play Fed because Fed made it to those finals. But looking at the whole picture, it is obvious Federer's age has benefitted Djokovic the most.
 

itrium84

Hall of Fame
I am sure it is mumbo jumbo to you, but anyone impartial enough can agree that 27 year old Fed and 38 year old Fed are not the same beast. Also, anyone can see clearly that Nadal earned 9 slam titles during Fed's prime period, whereas Djokovic has earned 90% of his slams in his post prime era. These are simple facts, and allow little margin for creative interpretation.
When you're GOAT, it doesn't matter at which periods other ATGs were in their peak/prime. Novak is greater however you turn, use or misuse stats.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
I think that your interpretation of the facts is quite skewed.

This matter is quite simple: Nadal achieved 9 slams while he was competing against prime Fed, and Novak only achieved 1. Then, he has accrued another 11 slams after Djokovic turned prime.

Djokovic was never able to deal with prime Fed, accruing a single lucky slam before Fed turned 30 where he got away playing the final against ATG Tsonga. Djokovic basically should be locked up for abusing the elderly, it is insane how much he has benefitted from Fed's decline.

The fact Nadal hasn't vultured from Federer like Djokovic is simply a result that Nadal's prime on grass finishing a long time ago, for obvious reasons. Have you ever wondered why the Channel Slam is such an achievement, beyond the fact that is is played on two very disparate surfaces?

Djokovic doesn't have any control over this, I am not claiming he should be blamed for vulturing. I'm just putting things in context. And no, the 2019 WB is not worth the same as the 2008 WB. Not even close.
My facts are skewed? :laughing:

You keep repeating falsehoods. If Nadal won 9 Slams while Federer was in his prime (when many would agree Federer played more like his prime in 2011-2012 than 2010 anyway) then Djokovic beat him twice in his prime: 2008 AO and 2010 USO. So he did challenge him and beat him.

Then you keep repeating the falsehood that Djokovic won 1 Slam before Federer turned 30 (a lucky one you say which is laughable considering the head to head at the AO, and his 9 titles) when it was in fact 3: 2008 AO, 2011 AO and 2011 Wimbledon.

And if Nadal's prime ended at 25 and that's why you say he was not able to vulture over Federer like Djokovic was, then maybe he isn't as good as you are saying he is. He's done on grass at 25 but he's somehow better than Djokovic? His achievements on grass are worth more? Hell no.
 
Last edited:

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
My facts are skewed? :laughing:

You keep repeating falsehoods. If Nadal won 9 Slams while Federer was in his prime (when many would agree Federer played more like his prime in 2011-2012 than 2010 anyway) then Djokovic beat him twice in his prime: 2008 AO and 2010 USO. So he did challenge him and beat him.

Then you keep repeating the falsehood that Djokovic won 1 Slam before Federer turned 30 (a lucky one you say which is laughable considering the head to head at the AO, and his 9 titles) when it was in fact 3: 2008 AO, 2011 AO and 2011 Wimbledon.

And if Nadal's prime ended at 25 and that's why you say he was not able to vulture over Federer like Djokovic was, then maybe he isn't as good as you are saying he is. He's done on grass at 25 but he's somehow better than Djokovic? His achievements on grass are worth more? Hell no.

Also, since you brought up the Channel Slam, Djokovic is only one of the 3 to do the original Channel Slam since he won RG and Wim where there was a 2 week break instead 3 weeks. Just fyi.
Solid post, but your last bit is wrong. The third week was added from 2015 onward. They all won the channel slam with two weeks in between.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Solid post, but your last bit is wrong. The third week was added from 2015 onward. They all won the channel slam with two weeks in between.
Thanks for the correction. I actually thought they changed it far before that. Even before the big 3 started dominating I thought they changed it. Maybe it was talks of changing it but they didn't do it until years later.
 
When you're GOAT, it doesn't matter at which periods other ATGs were in their peak/prime. Novak is greater however you turn, use or misuse stats.
If GOAT were a synonym for "the player with the most achievements" and you didn't look at any of the context, then you would be correct. Unfortunately, only Djokovic fans consider him the GOAT as things stand.
 
My facts are skewed? :laughing:
I didn't say that your facts were skewed, I said that your interpretation of the facts was skewed.

Facts aren't skewed, they are just facts. The problem is in the interpretation.

Here are some facts:

H2H Up to 2010 (Prime Fed, period over which Fed wins 80% of his slams)
Federer 13 - 6 Djokovic (Djokovic wins 1 slam)
Federer 8 - 14 Nadal
(Nadal wins 9 slams)

H2H since 2011 (Fed exits his prime, period over which Fed wins 20% of his slams):
Federer 10 - 21 Djokovic (Djokovic wins 19 slams)
Federer 8 - 10 Nadal (Nadal wins 11 slams)

Feel free to make a suitable interpretation of these facts that challenges the fact that Djokovic benefitted the most from Federer's decline and their age difference.

You keep repeating falsehoods. If Nadal won 9 Slams while Federer was in his prime (when many would agree Federer played more like his prime in 2011-2012 than 2010 anyway) then Djokovic beat him twice in his prime: 2008 AO and 2010 USO. So he did challenge him and beat him.
Fed was incapacitated in the 2008 AO due to mono. And in 2010 Djokovic went on to lose the USO final to Nadal. The point is that Djokovic didn't win slams beating prime Fed, it is a simple fact.

Then you keep repeating the falsehood that Djokovic won 1 Slam before Federer turned 30 (a lucky one you say which is laughable considering the head to head at the AO, and his 9 titles) when it was in fact 3: 2008 AO, 2011 AO and 2011 Wimbledon.
OK, look. if you want to split hairs over a single year be my guest. But the essential point I am making is valid and its truth shines with the clarity of a thousand suns.

And if Nadal's prime ended at 25 and that's why you say he was not able to vulture over Federer like Djokovic was, then maybe he isn't as good as you are saying he is. He's done on grass at 25 but he's somehow better than Djokovic? His achievements on grass are worth more? Hell no.
Yes, the 2008 WB title is worth more than any of the WB titles Djokovic has achieved. Of course, Djokovic has achieved more of them. Against post-prime Fed, but if that doesn't bother you so be it.
 
Top