BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
26? That’s just at RG. What about the AO? Without Rafa, we’re looking at probably 28 slams for Roger.If Nadal never existed Federer would have probably been number one for 7 straight years and have 26+ slams...
26? That’s just at RG. What about the AO? Without Rafa, we’re looking at probably 28 slams for Roger.If Nadal never existed Federer would have probably been number one for 7 straight years and have 26+ slams...
Not all baseline shots are the same. Do you think Agassi and Bruguera played the same baseline game? A complete game is more than just alternating net shots and baseline shots. Sampras did that better than Agassi but Agassi was much better across all surfaces. So who was the most complete between them? It's Agassi for sure IMO.If you truly want to make a point, you do need to come up with a different stack of stats, such as: winning shots distribution, net attacks etc. The fact itself that he won all sorts of tournaments on more or less dissimilar - either merely by color selection or indeed by playing characteristics - surfaces, is inconclusive as to the used style of play. It might just be his default mode ticks all the boxes in order for him to be the most efficient & successful contemporary player, based on a set of high quality broadly compatible properties.
26? That’s just at RG. What about the AO? Without Rafa, we’re looking at probably 28 slams for Roger.
If Nadal did NOT exist, Fed would have been the GOAT.
Fed is better than Novak on clay vs the Field. He would have far more French Open titles than Novak did. Especially from 2005-2008.
Nadal does exist and Djokovic is already GOAT
Without Nadal, it's quite likely that Federer wins the Calendar Year Grand Slam in 2006 and 2007 and either 9 or 10 straight Majors (depending on whether you think he beats Puerta at the 2005 French Open). Conversely, without Nadal, there's no good reason to think Djokovic wins a single Calendar Year Grand Slam (in the years he won 3 Majors, he lost to Federer & Wawrinka at the French Open).
It would be really tough to deny Federer GOAT status with 2 straight CYGSs.
Ratios wouldn’t exist in the first place thoughJust think, if statistics never existed Lew's posting per day ratio would drop like Courier after WIM93.
LOL what? Did someone hack your account?
Behave
Say you're right and nothing else changes. Say Federer and Djokovic win everything that Nadal stopped them from winning.
Federer: 6 AO, 4-6 RG, 9 WIM, 5 USO. 24-26 Slams, 6 WTF. 2 CYGS, 11 slams in a row.
Djokovic: 8 AO, 4-6 RG, 5 WIM, 5 USO. 22-24 Slams, 5 WTF. 0 CYGS, 4 slams in a row.
Nadal was a bigger roadblock for Federer unless Nadal stops Djokovic in another 2+ slams.
I wont stop till he behaves even though he will never do that im afraid maybe i should stop saying thatYou have a strange obsession of making the same remark over and over again. It is not very original and neither it is witty.
You okay?Nadal does exist and Djokovic is already GOAT
Seems to me that without Nadal Fed would have at two CYGS.If Nadal never existed Federer would have probably been number one for 7 straight years and have 26+ slams...
I wont stop till he behaves even though he will never do that im afraid maybe i should stop saying that
Fine thanYou should.
Seems to me that without Nadal Fed would have at two CYGS.
It doesn't quite work like that.Eh. Of the three, Djokovic's career has been the least affected by the existence of the other two, aside from the role they played in propelling him to play better tennis. He's been the apex predator of tennis: when he's fit and focused he wins regardless of the others whereas Nadal and Federer's results have depended on his level for what almost feels like forever at this point; it's been so long.
You have a strange obsession of making the same remark over and over again. It is not very original and neither it is witty.
Watch this and then say with a straight face that is the greatest tennis player of all timeWatch this and then say with a straight face that is the greatest tennis player of all time.
Watch this and then say with a straight face that is the greatest tennis player of all time
You will likely miss the point, so I'll spell it out for you. You can make a compilation of anyone's worst shots. It's not representative of how they normally play
Neither is that stupid emoji you keep posting over and over again.
Djokovic wins about 80% of the points where he hits a smash, which isn't that much lower than Fed (86%) or Nadal (84%), and only misses about 9% of them. That again is not that outrageously high, and certainly not something you'd call representative of his smashes.You have no point. Although I regard Federer as usually just another boring baseliner these days, those shots are indeed not representative of his forehand and smash, or would you say Federer has an unreliable forehand and overhead? They are funny because they are outliers.
Djokovic has a very, very, very unreliable overhead, which even when it goes in is mediocre. His compilation is funny exactly because it IS representative of his proficiency at the net. Or would you say he has a solid overhead that players fear?
One of the reasons for Sampras' success was that he could crowd the net. Even Agassi, one of the greatest exponents of the lob of all time would rarely try one against Sampras for fear of having it hammered away so well he couldn't get to it with a jet pack.
Djokovic [...] I've seen of few of them try and none would beat Cabal and Farah or Mahut and Herbert [in doubles].
he has an average to above average success rate at net
No, the clip is fine. It's your passing off of his misses as "representative" of his overheads that I have a problem withSo salty over a little youtube clip? Typical Jokofan.
It wouldn't make sense to judge Stefan Edberg's prowess as a baseliner because of the era he played in.High praise in an era awash with baseline bots.
if you brought actual peak Edberg to 2020, he'd get crushed by these "baseline bots"