Its incredible how much the Big 3 have taken away from each other....

Fridge

Professional
Djokovic without Fed and Nadal would likely also have USO 2007, French open 2008, USO 2010, FO 2011, FO 2012, FO 2013, USO 2013 and FO 2014 for a grand total 21 slams!!!

I can't decide if USO 2008 and Wimbledon 2012 would fall for him as he would have likely played murray in the finals as murray has given him problems. I would tend to give him 2008 USO and not Wimbledon 2012. IF so this would bump him up to 22 slams.

Fed without Nadal and Djokovic would likely also have 2008 AO, 2009 AO, 2011 AO, 2012 AO, 2016 AO, 2005 FO, 2006 FO, 2007 FO, 2008 FO, 2011 FO, 2012 FO, 2008 Wimbledon, 2014 Wimbledon, 2015 Wimbledon, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, and 2015 USO. For a grand total of 37 slams!!!

I don't know about AO 2014 because I feel that Stan the Man would have a really good shot at still winning so I didn't give it to him.

Nadal without Fed and Djokovic would likely also have 2012 AO, 2017 AO, 2006 Wimbledon, 2007 Wimbledon, 2011 Wimbledon, 2018 Wimbledon and 2011 USO for a grand total of 24 slams!!!

I could't give Rafa FO 2015 cuz Stan played too good in the finals.


Im not trying to start a flame war but I just think its so amazing that if these guys didn't have to compete with each other for slams they would each hold the slam record by a longshot.
 
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
What woud be Murray's slam tally without the big 3 in your opinion?
2ue6439.gif
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Guys like Stan,Delpo and Cilic may not have let him have it all his own way.

Cilic's best years have been when Murray's been out with injury, Del Potro if he stayed fit sure - Stan from 2014-2016 sure.
 

Pheasant

Legend
This is kind of an interesting concept.

Let's look at Andy Murray:

2008 Wimby, he lost in the Wimby quarters to Nadal. It looks like Murray would have had to play Schuttler in the semis, followed by Safin in the final. Safin was washed up. But he straight-setted Djoker. However, Murray is 2-0 vs Djoker on grass. I give Murray a 50/50 here
2008 USO. He lost to Fed in the final. He beat Nadal in the semis and Delpo in the quarters. Murray probably gets Muller in the final. I give this to Murray
2010 AO: Murray lost to Fed in the final. He beat Nadal in the quarters and Cilic in the semis. He also straight-setted Tsonga in the semis, who beat Djoker in the quarters. But honestly, without the Big 3, I think that Davydenko goes to the final since Fed took out Davy in the quarters. I have Murray a coin-flip vs Davydenko.
2010 Wimby: Murray lost to Nadal in the semis. So this becomes Murray vs Berdych in the final. Berdych straight-setted Djoker in the semis. This looks like another coin flip.
2011 AO. Murray los to Djoker in the final. This looks like Wawrinka vs Murray in the final. Murray has a huge advantage at this stage.
2011 FO: Nadal beat Murray in the semis. With no Big 4, Murray likely goes through Soderling in the semis, then Gasquet in the final. This is a coin flip. Soderling was dangerous.
2011 Wimby: Nadal beat Murray in the semis. With no Big 4, it's likely Murray vs Tsonga in the final. I give Murray a big edge here.
2011 USO: Nadal beat Murray in the semis. This is likely a Tsonga vs Murray final. Again, Murray is a big favorite.
2012 AO: Murray loses heart-break 5-setter to Djoker. Murray likely meets Berdych and shreds him.
2012 Wimby: Fed beats Murray in final. The other bracket had either Youznhy or Mayer. Murray wins this one easily.
2013 AO: Murray loses final to Djoker. Murray gets either Ferrer or Berdych in final. Murray wins easily
2014 AO: Murray lost to Fed in quarters. He likely gets Stan in final. Murray loses this.
2014 FO: Murray loses to Nadal in semis. He gets Raonic or Gulbis in final. Murray wins easily
2014 USO: Murray loses to Djoker in quarters. However, he then has to beat Nishi, then Cilic. Murray loses this.
2015 AO: Murray lost to Djoker in final. He likely gets Wawrinka in final. This is a coin flip at best.
2015 FO: Murray lost to Djoker in semis in a tough 5-setter. He'd face a zoning Stan in the final. This is a coin flip at best
2016 AO: Murray loses final to Djoker. He probably gets a weak Nishi in the final. Murray wins easily.
2016 FO: Murray loses final to Djoker. Murray beat Stan in semis. He probably gets Thiem in the final. Murray wins easily at this stage.

I see Murray walking away with about 10-12 of these. Let's say 11. Murray how has 14 slams.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Think how many more poor Andy would've won without all three of them!
That's the difference between them. For Fedalovic you have to take out just one of them for the slam counts of the other 2 to improve. In Murray's case, you have to remove all 3 of Fedalpvic for his slam count to improve.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Basically, Nadal still slayed :p

Well they all did, didn't they? They will probably be the top 3 in the open era for slam winners... all pretty much in the same era. Crazy to think 14 slams now seems like nothing as Nole approaches it and would still be joint 3rd, yet back in 2002 when Sampras got there it was incredible.

The weird thing is it feels like there's something a bit wrong... how can the top 3 players of all time all be in the same era? It is a good thing they are though because a player with 37 slams would be ridiculous. You'd have to question the competition. Yet 3 players winning so many slams also leaves you questioning it a bit. Ultimately though I think it does proves their greatness they were able to win so many slams and it's just a coincidence that they all came along at pretty much the same time. Even former all time greats lost far more to random players
 

Federev

G.O.A.T.
Well they all did, didn't they? They will probably be the top 3 in the open era for slam winners... all pretty much in the same era. Crazy to think 14 slams now seems like nothing as Nole approaches it and would still be joint 3rd, yet back in 2002 when Sampras got there it was incredible.

The weird thing is it feels like there's something a bit wrong... how can the top 3 players of all time all be in the same era? It is a good thing they are though because a player with 37 slams would be ridiculous. You'd have to question the competition. Yet 3 players winning so many slams also leaves you questioning it a bit. Ultimately though I think it does proves their greatness they were able to win so many slams and it's just a coincidence that they all came along at pretty much the same time. Even former all time greats lost far more to random players
Not a coincidence :

From another post:

"is it possible Federer also has something to do with this?

Let’s say someone comes along every few generations -

A Jordan ...or ... yes:

a Federer.

An athlete who raises the bar so extremely high - through his unprecedented natural gifts finally fulfilled by hard work - that his generation is decimated pretty much immediately. (We’ll call him the “bar raiser” (BR). They had no time in development to react/respond to the BR - cause they never saw him coming. They were preparing to excell against a previous and inferior standard. And so they get pounded so bad and become so discouraged that they actually are made to look weaker(a) than they are relative to past generations - and future.

But then the next generation - a few years later - say 5 years later or so - actually has a chance to develop in light of the BR - they - and their coaches - have enough time to prepare and respond to the changes in expectation the new level of the BR brought; they prepare and develop in light of the new standards needed to compete and win against the BR.

This is akin to bacteria that surprise an immune system initially, but eventually in time - the system “solves” the invader and adapts and meets the challenge. But it takes time.

So when Federer started wiping the floor with everyone - it took some time for a few “antibodies” to develop and rise to meet the challenge of the foreign invader.

Nadal and Uncle Toni met the challenge first - especially as Nadal was his own freak of nature on clay. But he was able to take what he had and shape it to often meet the challenge of the BR.

Then Novak met the challenge - againt both the BR and the BR’s first “antibody” - with his own amazing level.

(Of course by this time the BR was diminishing slightly but surely).

Soon some of their peers - Stan and Andy and DelPo - occasionally push themselves across the line and meet the new standard.

But only occasionally. The BR was a freak of nature with gifts that are anomalous and not likely repeatable.

And so many of his challengers injur themselves rising to meet the freak challenge. They are extraordinary in their effort, but left vulnerable to injury and burn out due to having to meet the unusually high level of the the original BR without his natural gifts.

But still - the players in that generation have been taught and become assimilated to the new culture of excellence created by the BR at his most virulent.

However, soon subsequent generations see the BR as a “far off” standard. They are 9-17 years away. They don’t really expect themselves deep down to meet the prime BR standard yet. Indeed they never experienced the BR at its height and never will. They think the BR is “ The way things are now“. And so they can “wait” to develop. They can “take their time” and assume they will eventually get to the level of the legend. It will naturally come - they think.

But they’re wrong. The BR was unique. And The few who met his level were unique outliers and pushed themselves to the very limits of what was possible for them.

Soon the BR fades just enough - along with those who met his level- just enough to leave a little room for those further down. But mainly they have to wait for the BR and the few who matched him to leave the scene...."
 

vex

Legend
Not a coincidence :

From another post:

"is it possible Federer also has something to do with this?

Let’s say someone comes along every few generations -

A Jordan ...or ... yes:

a Federer.

An athlete who raises the bar so extremely high - through his unprecedented natural gifts finally fulfilled by hard work - that his generation is decimated pretty much immediately. (We’ll call him the “bar raiser” (BR). They had no time in development to react/respond to the BR - cause they never saw him coming. They were preparing to excell against a previous and inferior standard. And so they get pounded so bad and become so discouraged that they actually are made to look weaker(a) than they are relative to past generations - and future.

But then the next generation - a few years later - say 5 years later or so - actually has a chance to develop in light of the BR - they - and their coaches - have enough time to prepare and respond to the changes in expectation the new level of the BR brought; they prepare and develop in light of the new standards needed to compete and win against the BR.

This is akin to bacteria that surprise an immune system initially, but eventually in time - the system “solves” the invader and adapts and meets the challenge. But it takes time.

So when Federer started wiping the floor with everyone - it took some time for a few “antibodies” to develop and rise to meet the challenge of the foreign invader.

Nadal and Uncle Toni met the challenge first - especially as Nadal was his own freak of nature on clay. But he was able to take what he had and shape it to often meet the challenge of the BR.

Then Novak met the challenge - againt both the BR and the BR’s first “antibody” - with his own amazing level.

(Of course by this time the BR was diminishing slightly but surely).

Soon some of their peers - Stan and Andy and DelPo - occasionally push themselves across the line and meet the new standard.

But only occasionally. The BR was a freak of nature with gifts that are anomalous and not likely repeatable.

And so many of his challengers injur themselves rising to meet the freak challenge. They are extraordinary in their effort, but left vulnerable to injury and burn out due to having to meet the unusually high level of the the original BR without his natural gifts.

But still - the players in that generation have been taught and become assimilated to the new culture of excellence created by the BR at his most virulent.

However, soon subsequent generations see the BR as a “far off” standard. They are 9-17 years away. They don’t really expect themselves deep down to meet the prime BR standard yet. Indeed they never experienced the BR at its height and never will. They think the BR is “ The way things are now“. And so they can “wait” to develop. They can “take their time” and assume they will eventually get to the level of the legend. It will naturally come - they think.

But they’re wrong. The BR was unique. And The few who met his level were unique outliers and pushed themselves to the very limits of what was possible for them.

Soon the BR fades just enough - along with those who met his level- just enough to leave a little room for those further down. But mainly they have to wait for the BR and the few who matched him to leave the scene...."

Djokovic and Rafa were well on thier way to being top 3 ATGs before Fed even won a slam. Djoker's entire life was tennis from before Fed emerged, there was a 1% chance he'd fail if he didn't figure out his nutrition but thats about it. He was can't miss. Nothing was going to stop Rafa's ascension.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Well they all did, didn't they? They will probably be the top 3 in the open era for slam winners... all pretty much in the same era. Crazy to think 14 slams now seems like nothing as Nole approaches it and would still be joint 3rd, yet back in 2002 when Sampras got there it was incredible.

The weird thing is it feels like there's something a bit wrong... how can the top 3 players of all time all be in the same era? It is a good thing they are though because a player with 37 slams would be ridiculous. You'd have to question the competition. Yet 3 players winning so many slams also leaves you questioning it a bit. Ultimately though I think it does proves their greatness they were able to win so many slams and it's just a coincidence that they all came along at pretty much the same time. Even former all time greats lost far more to random players

This is the most epic thing Ive ever read on here. I just blazed too, this is too epic :) hail the big 3 lol
 

Sputnik Bulgorov

Professional
Federer is the one who lost the most to the other two, and he still has 20 despite his losing records. He brute forced his slam wins through sheer consistency and longevity. He's the guy who always shows up when the other two have already lost, who always wins the matches he's supposed to win. He's lost a lot of the battles, but might just end up winning the war.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
This is kind of an interesting concept.

Let's look at Andy Murray:

2008 Wimby, he lost in the Wimby quarters to Nadal. It looks like Murray would have had to play Schuttler in the semis, followed by Safin in the final. Safin was washed up. But he straight-setted Djoker. However, Murray is 2-0 vs Djoker on grass. I give Murray a 50/50 here
2008 USO. He lost to Fed in the final. He beat Nadal in the semis and Delpo in the quarters. Murray probably gets Muller in the final. I give this to Murray
2010 AO: Murray lost to Fed in the final. He beat Nadal in the quarters and Cilic in the semis. He also straight-setted Tsonga in the semis, who beat Djoker in the quarters. But honestly, without the Big 3, I think that Davydenko goes to the final since Fed took out Davy in the quarters. I have Murray a coin-flip vs Davydenko.
2010 Wimby: Murray lost to Nadal in the semis. So this becomes Murray vs Berdych in the final. Berdych straight-setted Djoker in the semis. This looks like another coin flip.
2011 AO. Murray los to Djoker in the final. This looks like Wawrinka vs Murray in the final. Murray has a huge advantage at this stage.
2011 FO: Nadal beat Murray in the semis. With no Big 4, Murray likely goes through Soderling in the semis, then Gasquet in the final. This is a coin flip. Soderling was dangerous.
2011 Wimby: Nadal beat Murray in the semis. With no Big 4, it's likely Murray vs Tsonga in the final. I give Murray a big edge here.
2011 USO: Nadal beat Murray in the semis. This is likely a Tsonga vs Murray final. Again, Murray is a big favorite.
2012 AO: Murray loses heart-break 5-setter to Djoker. Murray likely meets Berdych and shreds him.
2012 Wimby: Fed beats Murray in final. The other bracket had either Youznhy or Mayer. Murray wins this one easily.
2013 AO: Murray loses final to Djoker. Murray gets either Ferrer or Berdych in final. Murray wins easily
2014 AO: Murray lost to Fed in quarters. He likely gets Stan in final. Murray loses this.
2014 FO: Murray loses to Nadal in semis. He gets Raonic or Gulbis in final. Murray wins easily
2014 USO: Murray loses to Djoker in quarters. However, he then has to beat Nishi, then Cilic. Murray loses this.
2015 AO: Murray lost to Djoker in final. He likely gets Wawrinka in final. This is a coin flip at best.
2015 FO: Murray lost to Djoker in semis in a tough 5-setter. He'd face a zoning Stan in the final. This is a coin flip at best
2016 AO: Murray loses final to Djoker. He probably gets a weak Nishi in the final. Murray wins easily.
2016 FO: Murray loses final to Djoker. Murray beat Stan in semis. He probably gets Thiem in the final. Murray wins easily at this stage.

I see Murray walking away with about 10-12 of these. Let's say 11. Murray how has 14 slams.

No way Murray would win Wim 08 or RG 14, his losses to Nadal there weren't competitive for even a set. 08, not mentally ready in his first final and loses to Safin or Hewitt. 14, loses SF to Ferrer instead of Nadal.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well they all did, didn't they? They will probably be the top 3 in the open era for slam winners... all pretty much in the same era. Crazy to think 14 slams now seems like nothing as Nole approaches it and would still be joint 3rd, yet back in 2002 when Sampras got there it was incredible.

The weird thing is it feels like there's something a bit wrong... how can the top 3 players of all time all be in the same era? It is a good thing they are though because a player with 37 slams would be ridiculous. You'd have to question the competition. Yet 3 players winning so many slams also leaves you questioning it a bit. Ultimately though I think it does proves their greatness they were able to win so many slams and it's just a coincidence that they all came along at pretty much the same time. Even former all time greats lost far more to random players
Not coincidence, more like the installment of homogenization benefited the Big 3.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Federer is the one who lost the most to the other two, and he still has 20 despite his losing records. He brute forced his slam wins through sheer consistency and longevity. He's the guy who always shows up when the other two have already lost, who always wins the matches he's supposed to win. He's lost a lot of the battles, but might just end up winning the war.
The curse of being 5 and 6 years older than his rivals.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Not a coincidence :

From another post:

"is it possible Federer also has something to do with this?

Let’s say someone comes along every few generations -

A Jordan ...or ... yes:

a Federer.

An athlete who raises the bar so extremely high - through his unprecedented natural gifts finally fulfilled by hard work - that his generation is decimated pretty much immediately. (We’ll call him the “bar raiser” (BR). They had no time in development to react/respond to the BR - cause they never saw him coming. They were preparing to excell against a previous and inferior standard. And so they get pounded so bad and become so discouraged that they actually are made to look weaker(a) than they are relative to past generations - and future.

But then the next generation - a few years later - say 5 years later or so - actually has a chance to develop in light of the BR - they - and their coaches - have enough time to prepare and respond to the changes in expectation the new level of the BR brought; they prepare and develop in light of the new standards needed to compete and win against the BR.

This is akin to bacteria that surprise an immune system initially, but eventually in time - the system “solves” the invader and adapts and meets the challenge. But it takes time.

So when Federer started wiping the floor with everyone - it took some time for a few “antibodies” to develop and rise to meet the challenge of the foreign invader.

Nadal and Uncle Toni met the challenge first - especially as Nadal was his own freak of nature on clay. But he was able to take what he had and shape it to often meet the challenge of the BR.

Then Novak met the challenge - againt both the BR and the BR’s first “antibody” - with his own amazing level.

(Of course by this time the BR was diminishing slightly but surely).

Soon some of their peers - Stan and Andy and DelPo - occasionally push themselves across the line and meet the new standard.

But only occasionally. The BR was a freak of nature with gifts that are anomalous and not likely repeatable.

And so many of his challengers injur themselves rising to meet the freak challenge. They are extraordinary in their effort, but left vulnerable to injury and burn out due to having to meet the unusually high level of the the original BR without his natural gifts.

But still - the players in that generation have been taught and become assimilated to the new culture of excellence created by the BR at his most virulent.

However, soon subsequent generations see the BR as a “far off” standard. They are 9-17 years away. They don’t really expect themselves deep down to meet the prime BR standard yet. Indeed they never experienced the BR at its height and never will. They think the BR is “ The way things are now“. And so they can “wait” to develop. They can “take their time” and assume they will eventually get to the level of the legend. It will naturally come - they think.

But they’re wrong. The BR was unique. And The few who met his level were unique outliers and pushed themselves to the very limits of what was possible for them.

Soon the BR fades just enough - along with those who met his level- just enough to leave a little room for those further down. But mainly they have to wait for the BR and the few who matched him to leave the scene...."

Interesting theory and in some ways I agree, but I just think Fed, Nadal and Nole are pretty special in terms of talent and hard work. The young guys problem is not seeing the bar as too high, they're just not as good in my opinion. I'm sure Zverev believes he can rise to the top of the game but he's not got the same special quality that F, N, and D have. Of course facing off against each other has raised all of their games
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
This is kind of an interesting concept.

Let's look at Andy Murray:

2008 Wimby, he lost in the Wimby quarters to Nadal. It looks like Murray would have had to play Schuttler in the semis, followed by Safin in the final. Safin was washed up. But he straight-setted Djoker. However, Murray is 2-0 vs Djoker on grass. I give Murray a 50/50 here
2008 USO. He lost to Fed in the final. He beat Nadal in the semis and Delpo in the quarters. Murray probably gets Muller in the final. I give this to Murray
2010 AO: Murray lost to Fed in the final. He beat Nadal in the quarters and Cilic in the semis. He also straight-setted Tsonga in the semis, who beat Djoker in the quarters. But honestly, without the Big 3, I think that Davydenko goes to the final since Fed took out Davy in the quarters. I have Murray a coin-flip vs Davydenko.
2010 Wimby: Murray lost to Nadal in the semis. So this becomes Murray vs Berdych in the final. Berdych straight-setted Djoker in the semis. This looks like another coin flip.
2011 AO. Murray los to Djoker in the final. This looks like Wawrinka vs Murray in the final. Murray has a huge advantage at this stage.
2011 FO: Nadal beat Murray in the semis. With no Big 4, Murray likely goes through Soderling in the semis, then Gasquet in the final. This is a coin flip. Soderling was dangerous.
2011 Wimby: Nadal beat Murray in the semis. With no Big 4, it's likely Murray vs Tsonga in the final. I give Murray a big edge here.
2011 USO: Nadal beat Murray in the semis. This is likely a Tsonga vs Murray final. Again, Murray is a big favorite.
2012 AO: Murray loses heart-break 5-setter to Djoker. Murray likely meets Berdych and shreds him.
2012 Wimby: Fed beats Murray in final. The other bracket had either Youznhy or Mayer. Murray wins this one easily.
2013 AO: Murray loses final to Djoker. Murray gets either Ferrer or Berdych in final. Murray wins easily
2014 AO: Murray lost to Fed in quarters. He likely gets Stan in final. Murray loses this.
2014 FO: Murray loses to Nadal in semis. He gets Raonic or Gulbis in final. Murray wins easily
2014 USO: Murray loses to Djoker in quarters. However, he then has to beat Nishi, then Cilic. Murray loses this.
2015 AO: Murray lost to Djoker in final. He likely gets Wawrinka in final. This is a coin flip at best.
2015 FO: Murray lost to Djoker in semis in a tough 5-setter. He'd face a zoning Stan in the final. This is a coin flip at best
2016 AO: Murray loses final to Djoker. He probably gets a weak Nishi in the final. Murray wins easily.
2016 FO: Murray loses final to Djoker. Murray beat Stan in semis. He probably gets Thiem in the final. Murray wins easily at this stage.

I see Murray walking away with about 10-12 of these. Let's say 11. Murray how has 14 slams.

Ewwww
 

Checkmate

Legend
Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na No...No...Na Na

It's Big 6 that have taken something (meaningful)from DJOKOVIC

Federer - The Greatest, Nadal - The Great, Sir Andy Murray, Peak Stanimal, ELBOW INJURY and Pepe Imaz = 6
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Fed won 12 Grand Slams in the 2003-2007 era facing Hewitt, Phillippoussis, Baghdatis, Roddick, old Agassi and the teenagers Nadal and Djokovic.

So Federer 37 - 12 = 25 GS.

And Nadal would have obviously defeated Wawrinka at RG 2015. He was playing bad that year, but he was healthy and he owns Wawrinka 16-3 in the H2H. And it was at RG, his favorite tournament. So Nadal would have destroyed Wawrinka's one-handed backhand as usual.

So Nadal = 25 GS.
 
Last edited:
I think it is incredible how much they have given each other.

Without Djokodal, Federer could have cruised past Pete's record and retired comfortably on 15 slams - similar to what Pete a few years earlier.

Without Fedal, Djoker wouldn't have pushed himself harder and harder to get the breakthrough and we would never have seen Djoker 2.0 because it wouldn't have been necessary.

Without Djokerer, Nadal would not have continued to adapt his game to combat the other two on hard and grass to continue to try to push for slam titles on all surfaces into his 30's.
 

cognitohand

New User
Fed won 12 Grand Slams in the 2003-2007 era facing Hewitt, Phillippoussis, Baghdatis, Roddick, old Agassi and the teenagers Nadal and Djokovic.

So Federer 37 - 12 = 25 GS.

And Nadal would have obviously defeated Wawrinka at RG 2015. He was playing bad that year, but he was healthy and he owns Wawrinka 16-3 in the H2H. And it was at RG, his favorite tournament. So Nadal would have destroyed Wawrinka's one-handed backhand as usual.

So Nadal = 25 GS.

The weak era you refer to is 2003-2008 not 2003-2007. In 2008 Novak is even weaker than 3 slam "teenage Nadal" as you refer to him was in 2003-2007 so 2008 is still weak, Murray with 0 slams is even weaker than 3 slam "teenage Nadal" so 2008 is still weak. 2008 is the same weak era as 2003-2007 or maybe even weaker.

As you said yourself 2003-2007 is weak era Djokovic, well so is 2008, 2009, 2010... funnily enough when Novak was no longer weak era in 2011 Nadal could no longer vulture and is routinely thrashed 7-0 on several occasions. A peak Novak is better than any version of Nadal. This is indisputable.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in your own logic is even in 2004-2007 Nadal won 3 weak era majors himself and propped up his wimbeldon creditentials by making 2 weak era finals when really he is not good enough of a grass player to deserve this in a strong era. Nadal is a weak era champion by defintion by winning in 2003-2008. Additionally Nadal has gone on to win weak slams against peurta, soderling, Thiem, berdych, ferrer, Anderson. As well as piling up an entire career of weak slams and titles on clay versus weak clay competition.

Nadals weak era inflated slam count is exposed at the WTF - when faced with top 8 players instead of mug weak era draws he can barely win matches there. This has nothing to do with weakest surfaces of a player as both Federer ad Djokovic have won a whole bunch of clay tournaments despite it being their weakest surface AND have dominated WTF.

Another flaw in your weak era dates is you have not factored in 2011 novak. Since Novak nadal has been exposed and getting thrashed approx 20-5 h2h. Nadal is lucky to have vultured much of his career before Novak and then slipped in a few berdych, Thiem, soderling slams along the way
All in all, almost all of Nadals slams have come in a weak era. Certainly his entire clay resume as well as gems such as his Berdych and Anderson slams. A few of Federers have too but he has so many slams its a joke and doesn't matter. Novak on the other hand has very few mug slams and has been demolishing Nadal
 
Last edited:

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
The weak era you refer to is 2003-2008 not 2003-2007. In 2008 Novak is even weaker than 3 slam "teenage Nadal" as you refer to him was in 2003-2007 so 2008 is still weak, Murray with 0 slams is even weaker than 3 slam "teenage Nadal" so 2008 is still weak. 2008 is the same weak era as 2003-2007 or maybe even weaker.

As you said yourself 2003-2007 is weak era Djokovic, well so is 2008, 2009, 2010... funnily enough when Novak was no longer weak era in 2011 Nadal could no longer vulture and is routinely thrashed 7-0 on several occasions.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in your own logic is even in 2004-2007 Nadal won 3 weak era majors himself and propped up his wimbeldon creditentials by making 2 weak era finals when really he is not good enough of a grass player to deserve this in a strong era. Nadal is a weak era champion by defintion by winning in 2003-2008. Additionally Nadal has gone on to win weak slams against peurta, soderling, Thiem, berdych, ferrer, Anderson. As well as piling up an entire career of weak slams and titles on clay versus weak clay competition.

Nadals weak era inflated slam count is exposed at the WTF - when faced with top 8 players instead of mug weak era draws he can barely win matches there. This has nothing to do with weakest surfaces of a player as both Federer ad Djokovic have won a whole bunch of clay tournaments despite it being their weakest surface AND have dominated WTF.

Another flaw in your weak era dates is you have not factored in 2011 novak. Since Novak nadal has been exposed and getting thrashed approx 20-5 h2h. Nadal is lucky to have vultured much of his career before Novak and then slipped in a few berdych, Thiem, soderling slams along the way
All in all, almost all of Nadals slams have come in a weak era. Certainly his entire clay resume as well as gems such as his Berdych and Anderson slams. A few of Federers have too but he has so many slams its a joke and doesn't matter. Novak on the other hand has very few mug slams and has been demolishing Nadal
If we’re comparing Federer and Nadal directly, 2008 is definitely weaker than 2007.

2007 Gonzalez or Djokovic >>>>>>>>>> way tougher than 2008 RG Fed
2007 Wimbledon Nadal >>> 2008 Wimbledon Federer
 

cognitohand

New User
If we’re comparing Federer and Nadal directly, 2008 is definitely weaker than 2007.

2007 Gonzalez or Djokovic >>>>>>>>>> way tougher than 2008 RG Fed
2007 Wimbledon Nadal >>> 2008 Wimbledon Federer

Yes it is foolish logic people like @Sport would not call 2008 a weak era too. By their own reasoning 2003-2008 was weak with 2008 being one of the weakest of those years. Additionally Nadal is very lucky to have sneaked in as many wins as possible before 2011 during weak era days as nadal is losing something like 5-20 versus Novak since 2011. You can't call Novak weak era in 2003-2007 and suddenly not have him weak era in 2008, 2009, 2010 when he was also slamless bar one freak slam beating weak era mug Tsonga in the final.

2010 was probably one of the weakest years of recent memory.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
The weak era you refer to is 2003-2008 not 2003-2007. In 2008 Novak is even weaker than 3 slam "teenage Nadal" as you refer to him was in 2003-2007 so 2008 is still weak, Murray with 0 slams is even weaker than 3 slam "teenage Nadal" so 2008 is still weak. 2008 is the same weak era as 2003-2007 or maybe even weaker.

As you said yourself 2003-2007 is weak era Djokovic, well so is 2008, 2009, 2010... funnily enough when Novak was no longer weak era in 2011 Nadal could no longer vulture and is routinely thrashed 7-0 on several occasions. A peak Novak is better than any version of Nadal. This is indisputable.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in your own logic is even in 2004-2007 Nadal won 3 weak era majors himself and propped up his wimbeldon creditentials by making 2 weak era finals when really he is not good enough of a grass player to deserve this in a strong era. Nadal is a weak era champion by defintion by winning in 2003-2008. Additionally Nadal has gone on to win weak slams against peurta, soderling, Thiem, berdych, ferrer, Anderson. As well as piling up an entire career of weak slams and titles on clay versus weak clay competition.

Nadals weak era inflated slam count is exposed at the WTF - when faced with top 8 players instead of mug weak era draws he can barely win matches there. This has nothing to do with weakest surfaces of a player as both Federer ad Djokovic have won a whole bunch of clay tournaments despite it being their weakest surface AND have dominated WTF.

Another flaw in your weak era dates is you have not factored in 2011 novak. Since Novak nadal has been exposed and getting thrashed approx 20-5 h2h. Nadal is lucky to have vultured much of his career before Novak and then slipped in a few berdych, Thiem, soderling slams along the way
All in all, almost all of Nadals slams have come in a weak era. Certainly his entire clay resume as well as gems such as his Berdych and Anderson slams. A few of Federers have too but he has so many slams its a joke and doesn't matter. Novak on the other hand has very few mug slams and has been demolishing Nadal
Federer and Djokovic have more chances to win on the dirt since it is 30 percent of the season. Indoor HC is a smaller part of the seasons since 2/14 top events have it compared to 4/14 on the dirt.
 

cognitohand

New User
Federer and Djokovic have more chances to win on the dirt since it is 30 percent of the season. Indoor HC is a smaller part of the seasons since 2/14 top events have it compared to 4/14 on the dirt.

Nope. 1 RG per year 1 WTF per year. Equal chance. Novak and fed both able to win big on their weakest surface. Nadal 0 wtf! As per @Sport this takes nadal out of contention for any GOAT discussions as noy able to win weakest surface

Also 2/14 vs 4/14 is only 2 to 1 ratio. Yet djokfed on clay have far more than 2x nadals haul indoors

Additionally fed and to a lesser extent djokovic are not bad anywhere in any condition. Fast, slow, low bounce, high bounce. Yes fed is far better fast indoors than slow outdoor clay but still that is relative to his own high standards. He isnt actually bad. Nadal is actually bad indoors so by quoted user own reasoning takes him out of any GOAT discussion
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
This has always been the case

If there is only one person able to win, the sport is dead

It needs its GOAT - Roger

It needs its second tier surface master - Ned

It needs its title stealer - Djoke
It also needs a bunch of many players looking from outside at what they may never get.
 
Top