If Nadal and/or Djokovic break Federer’s GS record does the record become meaningless?

fedfan08

Professional
I’m sure not many thought Sampras’s record would get broken (or at least not so soon after he retired). IF Nadal breaks Federer’s record while Federer is still playing and then Djokovic does the same soon after does it become meaningless? If one guy dominates like this you can argue he’s just a phenom and a freak. When three guys are doing it at the same time doesn‘t it signal the tour is weak and there’s a real lack of competition? It’s not good for the sport when going into a slam (or just about any tournament) you’re 99.9% certain one of three players will win it. Honestly the best thing that could happen to the sport in 2020 is if none of the big three win a slam. We need a changing of the guard. The sport is too predictable and boring right now.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
There's a lot of sodium pack threads going on around here lately. And to answer the question, it's all relative. To the bad Ol' Rog fans/glory hunters, anyone breaking his record is bad for the game. They were fine with their guy winning almost 3 slems a year for 4 years straight (many would argue that there was even less "competition" back then). I just find it incredibly funny/convenient that with RAFA (and to a lesser extent Joker) on the cusp of passing Ol' Rog we suddenly need a "changing of the guard" :whistle::censored:
 
Last edited:

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
From 2000 to 2009, Sampras had the record (a rather suspicious record, by the way).
From 2009 to date Federer has the absolute record.
How long will the joy of the Swiss and his staunch followers last?
1 year, maximum 2 years?
:cautious:
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
I doubt it's meaningless to the players involved or their fans.

However clearly there are other factors involved than the inherent genius of the players that they're racking up slams like no one ever has. It's too much of a coincidence otherwise.
 

fedfan08

Professional
There's a lot of sodium pack threads going around here lately. And to answer the question, it's all relative. To the bad Ol' Rog fans/glory hunters, anyone breaking his record is bad for the game. They were fine with their guy winning almost 3 slems a year for 4 years straight (many would argue that there was even less "competition" back then). I just find incredibly funny/convenient that with RAFA (and to a lesser extent Joker) on the cusp of passing Ol' Rog we suddenly need a "changing of the guard" :whistle::censored:
Yes. Like I said one guy doing it is totally different than 3. All in a row. And when Fed was dominating there were plenty of former players - including Sampras - questioning the competition, saying it was tougher when they played, more surface and style variation. With Sampras I just chalked it up to him being a little bitter his slam record was being broken so soon after he retired.
 

fedfan08

Professional
I doubt it's meaningless to the players involved or their fans.

However clearly there are other factors involved than the inherent genius of the players that they're racking up slams like no one ever has. It's too much of a coincidence otherwise.
Yes, exactly. No way you get 3 freaks of nature all in a row all playing together. Personally I think Djokovic has benefited the most since there is no one even close to him (or Fed or Nadal) that came up after him. Certainly not anyone with consistency like the big 3 have.
 

wang07

Semi-Pro
I agree that in some way this level of domination for many many years is "bad" for the sport, and a negative remark on the field. But this has been the case for way more than a decade now, and unlike what you're visioning, it won't suddenly get any worse if they continue dominating for more years and/or either Djokovic or Nadal breaks the Slam record.

I'm more worried about the post-Big3 era and the state of tennis, there will be a massive drought and lack of interest. Everyone is excited about the Slam record and the 3-way race for it heating up, there won't be anything of that kind for who knows how many years(talking mainly about "casual" tennis followers here) after the Big3 is gone.
So if we look at it that way, I'd say the Slam record being broken would even have more benefits, generally speaking.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
Yes. Like I said one guy doing it is totally different than 3. All in a row. And when Fed was dominating there were plenty of former players - including Sampras - questioning the competition, saying it was tougher when they played, more surface and style variation. With Sampras I just chalked it up to him being a little bitter his slam record was being broken so soon after he retired.
You're right, with 3 guys playing at GOAT candidate level the competition is/was much tougher (2007-early 2014 were the best years). Pre-RAFOLE, you had one guy turning the tour into his own personal playground. Now that there's 3 guys on the playground you and a bunch of other poasters here want to take your ball and go home. You don't like the possibility of Ol' Rog getting passed so now you're saying the record will become meaningless. That's not how it works, whoever has the most slems is GOAT.
 
Whoever has the most RG is the GOAT.

tenor.gif
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
You're right, with 3 guys playing at GOAT candidate level the competition is/was much tougher (2007-early 2014 were the best years). Pre-RAFOLE, you had one guy turning the tour into his own personal playground. Now that there's 3 guys on the playground you and a bunch of other poasters here want to take your ball and go home. You don't like the possibility of Ol' Rog getting passed so now you're saying the record will become meaningless. That's not how it works, whoever has the most slems is GOAT.
3 geriatrics declined from their best still mopping up the tour since 2017.
Career inflation stat padding era.
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
Nadal is still 2 Slams away from passing Federer.
Djokovic is 5 Slams away from passing Federer.
There's still A LOT of work to be done yet for either of them to win the Slam race.
I'm not sure Djokovic is going to win another 5 Slams. I don't think I see it happening at this point at his age.
Nadal has the best shot and even then it seems to be getting really tough for him. He had to quit mid-way in 2 Slams in 2018 from injuries. And that US Open 2019 final took everything in his being to cross the finish line. The competition is getting tougher and tougher each season.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
3 geriatrics declined from their best still mopping up the tour since 2017.
Career inflation stat padding era.
And? Their level is still higher most of the time than all the other players on tour. To me that says more about them than the younger players (all 3 are GOAT candidates after all). At the end of the day, tennis is a product. The Big 3 produce the best tennis so they're domination isn't bad for the game.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal is still 2 Slams away from passing Federer.
Djokovic is 5 Slams away from passing Federer.
There's still A LOT of work to be done yet for either of them to win the Slam race.
I'm not sure Djokovic is going to win another 5 Slams. I don't think I see it happening at this point at his age.
Nadal has the best shot and even then it seems to be getting really tough for him. He had to quit mid-way in 2 Slams in 2018 from injuries. And that US Open 2019 final took everything in his being to cross the finish line. The competition is getting tougher and tougher each season.

1 Major in 2020 and 1 Major in 2021, it is not far-fetched that this happens.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
When people say "we need a changing of the guard" but would rather Federer win a slam than any of the young players, you can see how genuine they really are. Plenty of people are calling for a change because Nadal's about to take the slam record, something they'd rather that Federer have. Simple as that.

As for if it's less of a big deal now that many people can break that record - of course not. After the Big 3 retire, no one in foreseeable future will ascend to those heights, though of course someone might break it again one day. It doesn't make it any less of a big deal that 3 players are trying to break the record at once. If anything, that makes it all the more exciting.

Would I rather see 3 of the greatest of all time shooting for 21 or see a lone 35 year old trying to beat a record from 20 years ago? Obviously the first choice. And also, the record only really became a big deal after Sampras. Are you actually suggesting that the only times the slam record was relevant was while either Sampras or Federer had the record? Come on. That's ridiculous.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
When people say "we need a changing of the guard" but would rather Federer win a slam than any of the young players, you can see how genuine they really are. Plenty of people are calling for a change because Nadal's about to take the slam record, something they'd rather that Federer have. Simple as that.

As for if it's less of a big deal now that many people can break that record - of course not. After the Big 3 retire, no one in foreseeable future will ascend to those heights, though of course someone might break it again one day. It doesn't make it any less of a big deal that 3 players are trying to break the record at once. If anything, that makes it all the more exciting.

Would I rather see 3 of the greatest of all time shooting for 21 or see a lone 35 year old trying to beat a record from 20 years ago? Obviously the first choice. And also, the record only really became a big deal after Sampras. Are you actually suggesting that the only times the slam record was relevant was while either Sampras or Federer had the record? Come on. That's ridiculous.


Obviously, they are...


 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Only for the die hard Fed fans. It’s very few Fed fans that are like the extremes in here. I haven’t met any Fed fan in real life talking like they do in here.

That's because in here they're (mostly) anonymous to everyone else.

This place brings out the true nature in his fans and you can rest assured that regardless of whether Nadal overtakes Fed's slam record or not, they will whinge about the clay until the day they die. They'll never accept that clay is just as important as the other surfaces and that clay slam titles hold the same value.
 

vex

Legend
If Nadal or Djokovic break the Slam record, prettier backhands and bigger endorsements will become more important.
The slam record will be replaced by the Rolex-Federer (c) Record for the most Handsome Tennis Champion, brought to you by Uniqlo. That’s the only record that matters, not these stupid slams that Rafa and Djoker keep winning.

Who could have known that the record every Fed fan spent the last decade obsessing over and pushing in our faces was actually meaningless?

Maybe the real slam record was the trolls and toxic Fed fans we met along the way...
 
Last edited:

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
The slam record will be replaced by the Rolex-Federer (c) Record for the most Handsome Tennis Champion, brought to you by Uniqlo. That’s the only record that matters, not these stupid slams that Rafa and Djoker keep winning.

Who could have known that the record every Fed fan spent the last decade obsessing over and pushing in our faces was actually meaningless?

Maybe the real slam record was the trolls and toxic Fed fans we met along the way...
I don’t think anyone anticipated this present weak era.
 

ChrisRF

Legend
1) Sampras’ record never looked like it would hold on for a long time, for many reasons. To say it short, it was literally the first real record in that category (Open Era was only some 30 years old with only about 10 years with everyone competing at Australian Open) and Sampras was never dominant outside Wimbledon. No French Open as an option AND no hardcourt Slam between age 25-31 AND early retirement couldn’t be “unbeatable for a long time”. The were already 4 women with well over 14 Slams, so since dominance over the field is relative it is absolutely no surprise that now we have the same numbers for men. If there was an Open Era earlier, both Laver and Rosewall would have more Slams than Sampras (most likely not more than 20 though). Bill Tilden would be a record candidate as well.

2) To the “weak field” assumption: No distribution of Slam titles between players in any way can say something about the absolute level of competition. Dominance can mean that the field is good but the dominators even better OR just decent players dominating a weak field. Equal competetion again can mean everyone good or everyone bad.
 
Let's say Fed's record falls to Rafa... it will be the curious case of Fed; the man that didn't start his career the GOAT, didn't end it as the GOAT but was called the undeniable, undisputed GOAT right throughout his playing days :unsure:

If he retires before the record falls, at least he can say that when he retired he had the slam record much like Pete can say.
 

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer will always have a case to be GOAT. If Federer still holds on to the record, Djokdal have a case too.

I am expecting Nadal to break it. Federer needs 2 more slams at least to fend them off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vex

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Let's say Fed's record falls to Rafa... it will be the curious case of Fed; the man that didn't start his career the GOAT, didn't end it as the GOAT but was called the undeniable, undisputed GOAT right throughout his playing days :unsure:

If he retires before the record falls, at least he can say that when he retired he had the slam record much like Pete can say.
I know what I would have done if I was Federer. I’d retire after Wimbledon and bathe in the glory. Still be the king of Wimbledon, maybe forever. Retire with dignity while still being a top player. He is top 3 in the age of 38 with two other ATG. Just the reputation he has in Wimbledon alone makes him a living legend. The choke this year was bad, but he is old, it is as incredible he even reached the final itself. I think Rafa and/or Novak will get more than 21 slams. I don’t think Fed can stop that from happening.
 

Pheasant

Legend
20 slam titles is amazing. Anybody that can break that record deserves it fair and square. I will be the first to congratulate the guy(s) that pass Fed.

Excuses are for the birds. The player with the most slam trophies will be king of this era. And unfortunately, it’s looking like Fed will be eclipsed.

Fed has been amazing. He has fought off two legends for a very long time. I cannot believe that he has held them off this long. We Fed fans should never be upset. It will be a very long time before another one of our favorites will win 20 slam titles. We cannot get greedy, even if he is eclipsed.

Twenty years from now, we will look back and be amazed by this era. We will look back at each of the big 3 and brag about how we caught the majority of their big matches.

Watching Lendl pass McEnroe was quite painful back in the day. But now, I respect Lendl’s records. I appreciate Lendl.

i will one day miss Nadal and Djoker, which sounds insane. But I am sure it’s true. They are legends of the sport. Disrespecting any of their accomplishments is disrespecting Federer.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Grand Slam record = GOAT crown.

Roughly 2005-2025 is the Big 3 (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) era. If I were to say that this is the greatest tennis era of all time, I would not be far from truth. We are witnessing the 3 best players of all time fighting against each other for the Holy Grail of tennis (Grand Slam record). He who ends up with the most Slams will be recognized by future generations as the winner of the race, and so the best player, the GOAT.
 
Last edited:

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Grand Slam record = GOAT title.

Roughly 2005-2025 is the Big 3 (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) era. If I were to say that this is the greatest tennis era of all time, I would not be far from truth. We are witnessing the 3 best players of all time fighting against each other for the Holy Grail of tennis (Grand Slam record). He who ends up with the most Slams will be recognized by future generations as the winner of the race, and so the best player, the GOAT.

Please let it be Nadal, it would be Mythical af :) I can say I was there from the beginning for the whole ride 8-B
 

Fiero425

Legend
There's a lot of sodium pack threads going on around here lately. And to answer the question, it's all relative. To the bad Ol' Rog fans/glory hunters, anyone breaking his record is bad for the game. They were fine with their guy winning almost 3 slems a year for 4 years straight (many would argue that there was even less "competition" back then). I just find incredibly funny/convenient that with RAFA (and to a lesser extent Joker) on the cusp of passing Ol' Rog we suddenly need a "changing of the guard" :whistle::censored:

This is what happens during "dead period" offseason in tennis! It stinks, but all we'll get until ATP Cup next month are threads dealing with "what ifs?!" :unsure:
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
I’m sure not many thought Sampras’s record would get broken (or at least not so soon after he retired). IF Nadal breaks Federer’s record while Federer is still playing and then Djokovic does the same soon after does it become meaningless? If one guy dominates like this you can argue he’s just a phenom and a freak. When three guys are doing it at the same time doesn‘t it signal the tour is weak and there’s a real lack of competition? It’s not good for the sport when going into a slam (or just about any tournament) you’re 99.9% certain one of three players will win it. Honestly the best thing that could happen to the sport in 2020 is if none of the big three win a slam. We need a changing of the guard. The sport is too predictable and boring right now.

Even if they surpass Fed, it would not make his total meaningless, it would just mean that Roger was overrated and not as good as his fan(boys/girls) had hoped.
 

vex

Legend
Definitely disagree. Previous years sure, their 2019 versions no
I can’t tell if we’re quadruple reverse sarcasming each other.

I’m suggesting that 2019/2020 Tsits, Med and Thiem are tougher opponents for Rafa and Djoker than 2011-2017 Ferrer, Berd and Nishikori. That Fed fans are trying to write off Novak and rafa’s current slams when the competition is quite healthy
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I can’t tell if we’re quadruple reverse sarcasming each other.

I’m suggesting that 2019/2020 Tsits, Med and Thiem are tougher opponents for Rafa and Djoker than 2011-2017 Ferrer, Berd and Nishikori

Oh ok I was about to say u must be loco :p im with Gandalf currently

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: vex

Fiero425

Legend
Even if they surpass Fed, it would not make his total meaningless, it would just mean that Roger was overrated and not as good as his fan(boys/girls) had hoped.

The same could be said of Sampras since we were ready to overlook the fact that he never even played a FO final! He beat some past FO Champs in Paris, but never came together with him losing his best chances against inevitable winners like Kafelnikov back in '96! :unsure:
 
Fed fanatics around here are mentally imploding and possibly getting dumber by the second as a result. It would be pathetic if not so comical.
Honestly, you can't really blame fed fans for feeling like this though. For so long they thought that he'd remain the GOAT for (possibly) forever. Even at this time last year things were looking pretty good for him at 20, 17, 14, and a decent chance that neither catches/surpasses him. 365 days later and Nadal/Joker end up winning two slams each and suddenly it goes from neither one catching him to both with very good chances of doing so. Then of course there's the 40-15 fiasco and you can see the progression for fed fans from euphoria to psych ward.
 

MugOpponent

Hall of Fame
Federer will always have a case to be GOAT. If Federer still holds on to the record, Djokdal have a case too.

I am expecting Nadal to break it. Federer needs 2 more slams at least to fend them off.

I think this is true. It's also why it's foolish to get overly involved emotionally in slam count. At some point when you win so much you get to make the case you are/were the greatest even if others are within or behind a couple slams. Look the big 3 are going to end up with prodigious numbers. They all have incredible strengths and virtues as tennis players and each has areas where they aren't perhaps as strong as the other two. I don't care how it ends up if someone wants to make the case that one of the big 3 is the best they've ever seen, then who am I to say they're wrong?

Nadal is probably a decent sized favorite to end up with the most as of today but a lot can happen in tennis and the margins are often miniscule. Federer could have easily won Wimbledon and Medvedev could have easily won the US Open. Really only like three shots had to be different and if they were, the conversation would be remarkably different.
 
Top