In the final analysis, Federer actually came closer to the CYGS (TWICE)

WildRevolver

Semi-Pro
I know Djokovic's run this year was the most dramatic because he took it down to the very last match out of the 28 grand slam matches needed to achieve the CYGS, but he fell 3 sets short of what was needed. Federer, actually came closer to Novak's '21 run twice. In fact, Novak was closer in '15 than this year.

Here is the breakdown of how the Big 3 have fared in getting the necessary sets required to win all four GS:

Federer:

2006: -2 sets required
2007: -2 sets required

Djokovic

2015: -2 sets required
2021: -3 sets required

Nadal:

2010: -9 sets required
2019: -7 sets required
 
Last edited:

ibbi

Legend
You can't say that, because we've seen now twice in the past 10 years just how the pressure builds as you get closer and closer to the end of that long road. If Federer had won either of those Roland Garros finals you don't know what state he would have been in come New York. The pressure might have broken him too.
 

ScottleeSV

Professional
Novak came the closest.

However, if Federer had won that 06 French Open final (or even the FO 07 final), he probably would have done the CYGS at least once. He was young enough to not get the end of season fatigue, and Nadal/Djokovic were not yet at his level away from clay.

All hypothetical BS though. At the end of it all, nobody did the CYGS and never will (out of these 3 anyway).
 

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
I know Djokovic's run this year was the most dramatic because he took it down to the very last match out of the 28 grand slam matches needed to achieve the CYGS, but he fell at 25/28 sets needed. Federer, actually came closer to Novak's '21 run twice. In fact, Novak was closer in '15 than this year. . .
It's simply the GS . . . and no, is the answer.

Having said that, it's an amazing thing for a player to hold three of the four titles in one year. That's some exclusive company. And Djokovic should be mighty proud to be a member of that club.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Djoker 2021 is the only one that has come close since I’ve been following tennis.* FEDR was never close. You either come into the last with the other three or you don’t. OP is ridiculous.

*Andy Murray notes “male player.”
 
Last edited:

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
The numbers don’t lie.
If you don't include pressure, sure. If every slam were played in a vacuum then yes, Federer 06-07 and Djokovic 2015 would be closest.

But that isn't true. Slams aren't independent. There is pressure included with the task and a sense of inevitability that all your opponents are trying to stop.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
I do think 06 Fed was the closest. You can be linear if you want to be unnecessarily anal, but remove GOATdal in his epic kit whom no one was ever gonna beat at the FO, and Fed would have done it. (In 07 too)
Not being “linear” negates the entire premise of the CYGS and the pressure that grows and culminates when you have bagged the first three. FEDR and Rafa were never close.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
If you don't include pressure, sure. If every slam were played in a vacuum then yes, Federer 06-07 and Djokovic 2015 would be closest.

But that isn't true. Slams aren't independent. There is pressure included with the task and a sense of inevitability that all your opponents are trying to stop.
Roberta Vinci approves of this post.
 

WildRevolver

Semi-Pro
If you don't include pressure, sure. If every slam were played in a vacuum then yes, Federer 06-07 and Djokovic 2015 would be closest.

But that isn't true. Slams aren't independent. There is pressure included with the task and a sense of inevitability that all your opponents are trying to stop.
You’re assuming pressure made of expectations would break Fed. It would not. Only Novak and Rafa’s pressure has done that to him.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
As much as I like Federer, this is far from true. Djoker completed the first 27 matches in order. Fed's best attempt was ended after after match #13.

The whole idea of the CYGS is to win each match in order, starting with R128 of the AO. Djoker's chase was incredibly close. Federer was a universe away.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Saying Fraud would have crumbled under pressure in 2006 or 2007 is ridiculous. Unless you say pressure affects him at 2007 Wimbledon, there's no chance Fed of those years loses to opponents he knows he's better than (and 2007 he still had that belief at Wimbledon anyways but it was too close for comfort). But of course if Fed had somehow beaten Nadal at RG or Nadal had lost earlier, we know there's no chance Fed loses to him at Wimby if he even makes it there lol. The only time that even happened in his prime was all the way at the end in 2009.

The pressure of the CYGS would have been less than the pressure of the 2009 RG final which he knew was his only chance to ever win RG and he played a picture perfect match there.

Joe is an old man who played a few too many taxing matches in this tournament and simply hit a massive wall both physically and mentally in the final. That's what happens when you are old. We saw Fed and Pete hit similar walls in 2001 and 2014 USO after some tough matches, granted against much better opponents, but Djokovic is over a year older than even 2014 Fed. Physically better Joe would have grinded Med down even if he didn't have the confidence to hit through him and laughed his way to the CYGS.
 

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
All those saying Fed wasn’t close, I have to laugh. It’s the same in the record books, 3 out of 4 slams with a defeat in the other final. All the hypothetical pressure etc is just that. The achievement is the same.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
All those saying Fed wasn’t close, I have to laugh. It’s the same in the record books, 3 out of 4 slams with a defeat in the other final. All the hypothetical pressure etc is just that. The achievement is the same.
If you want to ignore what a CYGS means then Djoker already won it. He won all four in a row. So given all his other records and his H2H advantage he has a very strong case to be the GOAT.
 

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
If you want to ignore what a CYGS means then Djoker already won it. He won all four in a row. So given all his other records and his H2H advantage he has a very strong case to be the GOAT.
GOAT this, GOAT that. It’s not even a thing to me really. Both Federer and Djokovic have excelled with multi slam years. 4 consecutive slams also great achievement but not recognised as the Grand Slam.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
You’re confusing logic with copium. FEDR was never close. He wasn’t even half way home. This is a fact. You can discount the importance of the CYGS if you choose but you can’t change what it is. Make up your own metric, if you want. Number of GS sets won in a year, for example. I don’t think that one is as meaningful but that is my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
GOAT this, GOAT that. It’s not even a thing to me really. Both Federer and Djokovic have excelled with multi slam years. 4 consecutive slams also great achievement but not recognised as the Grand Slam.
I would be OK if anyone that starts a GOAT thread is banned but then there would be no more TTW.

Incidentally, FEDR is the GOAT. His game is very pretty. I’m 75%-80% serious.:giggle:
 
Last edited:

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Only two players after Laver have won 3 slams in a year and reached the final of the 4th.

Djokovic did it in 2015 and 2021.
2015: lost to Wawrinka (3 slams)
2021: lost to Mevedev (1 slam)

Federer did it in 2006 and 2007.
2006: lost to Nadal (20 slams)
2007: lost to Nadal (20 slams)

So Federer lost to 40 slams and Djokovic lost to 4 slams.

Ergo, 40 / 4 = 10, shows that Federer is 10 x better than Djokovic. :)

Don't be boring and question my math.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Novak was definitely closer, that much is indisputable. The pressure, the expectations, etc. all weigh considerably more heavily on someone in the process of completing the last few stages of a CYGS. It's really no comparison at all to someone who missed out on his chance midway through and was relatively free from that kind of pressure in the last two Slams.

But Djokovic most likely wouldn't have been if he had 2006 or 2007 Nadal on clay instead of 2021 Nadal to deal with, however, so I don't think that argument actually means a whole lot in the long run if we're comparing him to 2006 or 2007 Federer.
 

WildRevolver

Semi-Pro
Only two players after Laver have won 3 slams in a year and reached the final of the 4th.

Djokovic did it in 2015 and 2021.
2015: lost to Wawrinka (3 slams)
2021: lost to Mevedev (1 slam)

Federer did it in 2006 and 2007.
2006: lost to Nadal (20 slams)
2007: lost to Nadal (20 slams)

So Federer lost to 40 slams and Djokovic lost to 4 slams.

Ergo, 40 / 4 = 10, shows that Federer is 10 x better than Djokovic. :)

Don't be boring and question my math.
Cold hard truth.
 

BauerAlmeida

Professional
We don't know what would have happened in 2007 had he won RG, his mentality was a big part in winning the finals of Wimbledon and USO, and that might have been different had he won RG and had the Grand Slam pressure.

But in 2006 if he had won RG he would have won the Grand Slam, little argument there.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
I know Djokovic's run this year was the most dramatic because he took it down to the very last match out of the 28 grand slam matches needed to achieve the CYGS, but he fell at 25/28 sets needed. Federer, actually came closer to Novak's '21 run twice. In fact, Novak was closer in '15 than this year.

Here is the breakdown of how the Big 3 have fared in getting those 28 sets:

Federer:

2006 - 26/28
2007 - 26/28

Djokovic

2015 - 26/28
2021 - 25/28

Nadal:

2010 - 19/28
2019 - 21/28
Either you're trolling or you don't know nothing about math.
Winning all 28 Grand Slam matches account to 84 sets won, barring any WO or mid match retirement. So Djokovic was already 81/84 on sets won in way to the Grand Slam, while Federer just got stuck twice into 40/82 sets won in the correct order.
Even worse, in 2016, Djoker was 49/84 sets won in the correct order before his Querrey debacle.
 

WildRevolver

Semi-Pro
Either you're trolling or you don't know nothing about math.
Winning all 28 Grand Slam matches account to 84 sets won, barring any WO or mid match retirement. So Djokovic was already 81/84 on sets won in way to the Grand Slam, while Federer just got stuck twice into 40/82 sets won in the correct order.
Even worse, in 2016, Djoker was 49/84 sets won in the correct order before his Querrey debacle.
How are you the first person to catch this? I noticed that I messed up after the third reply and decided to let it go and see how long it would take.
 
Top