Roger Federer gives verdict on Novak Djokovic’s latest bid to hold all four Grand Slam titles

The most important thing Fed says that clay plays faster today. Obviously that's clear to anyone who's watching, but nice to hear from the man himself.
 
Fed is absolutely right....

Homogenized surfaces do make it easier for one player to win all four, but if anything it takes a tremendous level of focus, conditioning, and consistency to win four in a row these days.. especially in a baseline era where physicality is the most important thing.

Respect to Novak as well, for changing it up on each surface he plays. He adapts well on grass, and his movement on clay is top class

If Novak wins his second nole slam, then he is a tennis machine. That’s all that needs to be said
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Everybody plays and trains under the same conditions and tailor their game in the best possible way to match the game. So It evens out in the end. Djokovic plays against these players, he isn't playing players from the ''specialist'' era.

Hard Courts, clay and grass is still different from each other and they play different. Players have gotten more complete as the years have gone by and the game has improved.
:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

Guess hitting the ball as hard as you can and hoping it goes in means you're more "complete" than a serve and volleyer who tactically approaches the net for a putaway.
 
I hate when people say the courts play the same etc..
Thats why Nadal has 11 RG and 1 AO..
Grass will always be Grass, Clay will always be Clay, Hardcourt will always be Hardcourt..
You simply must be super complete player, with amazing fitness.. not a lot of players fit these criterias
Even the greats before, they all had weaknesses.. which Djokovic in his prime shows little off.

But amazing explanation from Federer, You know why we have'nt seen a 4GS winner in 50+ years?
Because it was harder back then/ and easy now!! Genius Federer!
Players(Excl. Big3) nowadays can't even make 2 conseq. SF GS appearances let alone win 4 in a row:-D:-D
 
Highest winning percentage on their worst surface, in bold active players (5 out of 27):

Djokovic 79.3
Nadal 77.4

Connors 76.6
Laver 76.2
Federer 75.9
Borg 75.2
Lendl 75.0
Agassi 72.7
Wilander 72.3
McEnroe 71.9
Newcombe 71.7
Ashe 70.9
Rosewall 70.5
Murray 69.9
Smith 69.8
Del Potro 69.6
Vilas 69.1
Okker 68.8
Edberg 68.3
Gerulaitis 67.1
Richey 67.1
Mecir 66.7
Becker 66.3
Stich 66.1
Nastase 66.1
Nalbandian 65.6
Ramirez 65.5
Interesting stats.
Peak fed peak nadal and peak joker are all on the same general level.
Its not like joker is twice as good as federer, so who cares. They are the 3 best players of all time and their records are all almost even.
 
If surfaces are similar, difference in results would be smaller. Fed is good on grass, why? He likes green color? And Nadal on the other hand like red color?
And again, most important is Federer is picking sore grapes, diminishing someones results, its all about.
They are pretty small. But there are inherent differences in the surfaces that cannot be discounted and I've talked about them before, yet you keep ignoring that part for your own purposes.

The other thing is that a small difference in level can result in a win each time. Fed is just better than Nadal on grass because Fed's game works better on grass than Nadal's game does on grass.

If you think that is somehow proof that grass and clay are as different now as they were back then (or rather according to you, grass and clay are more different now than they were during Borg's era), then explain to me how Nadal has 3 IW titles, 4 Rogers Cup titles, yet 0 at Miami. Are you telling me those surfaces are completely different?

IDC about what Fed thinks about Djokovic's record. It's the differences in surfaces I'm more interested in, or rather whether it's easier to win 4 four tournaments with surfaces that have been homogenised as far as possible, or whether it's easier to with 4 surfaces when 3/4 play the same but 1 plays very differently?
 
Yes, deleted due to trolling and fighting. The usual.
That's what I thought. Sometimes you see the same thread twice, and the second time it is fine because people are marginally more polite.

I really did not mean to criticize Fed heavily for his remarks. I think they are about 80% fair, with perhaps a little bit of push-back defending his own place in tennis. I think all these top guys want to be considered at least the best of their era, so they are probably more competitive with the guys they play against. In the 90s it was crystal clear that Pete was the best. It's not at all clear right now, subject to what happens now and in the near future.
 
Last edited:

Hitman

Bionic Poster
That's what I thought. Sometimes you see the same thread twice, and the second time it is fine because people are marginally more polite.

I really did not mean to criticize Fed heavily for his remarks. I think there are about 80% fair, with perhaps a little bit of push-back defending his own place in tennis. I think all these top guys want to be considered at least the best of their era, so they are probably more competitive with the guys they play against. In the 90s it was crystal clear that Pete was the best. It's not at all clear right now, subject to what happens now and in the near future.
That is because their story is not over yet...
 
That's what I thought. Sometimes you see the same thread twice, and the second time it is fine because people are marginally more polite.

I really did not mean to criticize Fed heavily for his remarks. I think there are about 80% fair, with perhaps a little bit of push-back defending his own place in tennis. I think all these top guys want to be considered at least the best of their era, so they are probably more competitive with the guys they play against. In the 90s it was crystal clear that Pete was the best. It's not at all clear right now, subject to what happens now and in the near future.
It is also crystal clear that Federer is clearly the dominant player of the noughties, and Djokovic is clearly the best player of the twenty-tens.

:cool:
 
That's what I thought. Sometimes you see the same thread twice, and the second time it is fine because people are marginally more polite.

I really did not mean to criticize Fed heavily for his remarks. I think there are about 80% fair, with perhaps a little bit of push-back defending his own place in tennis. I think all these top guys want to be considered at least the best of their era, so they are probably more competitive with the guys they play against. In the 90s it was crystal clear that Pete was the best. It's not at all clear right now, subject to what happens now and in the near future.
Very interesting comment on the current day situation. It really is in stark relief with Pete. He completely went out on his own terms and it was a clearly defined thing in terms of his complete dominance of his era when he retired.

I wonder whether having such a clear cut status in his own time made Pete more willing to be congratulatory when he saw how great his successors could potentially be? It was very different to how he greeted opponents success during his playing time. After retiring, Pete was so complimentary of Roger and Rafa, often making the effort to be in attendance whenever any of his records were near being broken, and also talking with great honesty about expecting Federer to break some of the records he had set.
 
Why was it deleted? The subject should be fine. There must have been trolling and fighting.

I do have a couple thoughts. Fed says it's easier to do today. But doesn't make us immediately ask, "If it is now easier, why couldn't he do it?"

I can't help but think that he is subtly degrading the importance of what is happening. Mind you, RG is anything but a done deal. Rafa is not the only guy who can steal that upcoming major from him. But if Gumby does it again, I have to say he'll have as strong bragging rights for GOAT as any other player. Even Laver only did it once as a pro.
I have been saying the same thing on this subject for a while now. If Novak gets a double straight slam he is the GOAT for me. I will always be a Fed fan first and foremost but I also agree with you here that Fed shouldn't say it is easier to do it these days when he hasn't done it. It's all on him. He had the chance in USO 09 and blew it. I am sure Fed fans will cling tighter than ever to slam tally and Nadal fans will also find new value in this stat, having hitherto droned on about H2H. Nole's first straight slam in 2015-16 itself didn't get the acknowledgement it deserved and I doubt that's going to change. But for me, that will surely move the needle.
 
First, versatile players have already existed, as I showed in post #6.

Second, players are now more complete. Federer is a Sampras with better movement/backhand, which allows him to be good on clay too (but still not as good as on fast courts).
The guy is 38 and played aggressive tennis rather than hackery through this homogenized era that started in the early start of the 21st century
What makes it more amazing is that he amassed so many Slams with a 90 inch racquet that he played with for more of his pro level life then
late in his career goes up in size. Ivan Lendl did the same thing by serving and volleying for grass, amazing feats considering their challenges.

At the same time lucky Delpo, Soderling and some other big tall guns didnt have full length tennis careers.
 
I have been saying the same thing on this subject for a while now. If Novak gets a double straight slam he is the GOAT for me. I will always be a Fed fan first and foremost but I also agree with you here that Fed shouldn't say it is easier to do it these days when he hasn't done it. It's all on him. He had the chance in USO 09 and blew it. I am sure Fed fans will cling tighter than ever to slam tally and Nadal fans will also find new value in this stat, having hitherto droned on about H2H. Nole's first straight slam in 2015-16 itself didn't get the acknowledgement it deserved and I doubt that's going to change. But for me, that will surely move the needle.
If you look at the state of his biggest challengers on both streaks you will know why what you say is bogus.

Just compare Del Potro from 2009 and 2018 and tell me with a straight face that he was the same (quality) player.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
There are 65 days before the event even starts. What's the rush?

It is Federer helping his new (since Laver cup 2018) friend Djokovic, making sure Djokovic does not fail at it. Whoever provokes ruthless killing machine in Djokovic is his friend helping him achieve more by being clutch when it matters the most.

Funnily enough, it does not matter if a friend knows what he is doing. What matters is the end result.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
My interpretation is that Federer' stated that he was not the GOAT. Even if it is now easier, I was not able to do it and, therefore, people who done it before are to be considered to be the GOAT.
 
Last edited:
I have been saying the same thing on this subject for a while now. If Novak gets a double straight slam he is the GOAT for me. I will always be a Fed fan first and foremost but I also agree with you here that Fed shouldn't say it is easier to do it these days when he hasn't done it. It's all on him. He had the chance in USO 09 and blew it. I am sure Fed fans will cling tighter than ever to slam tally and Nadal fans will also find new value in this stat, having hitherto droned on about H2H. Nole's first straight slam in 2015-16 itself didn't get the acknowledgement it deserved and I doubt that's going to change. But for me, that will surely move the needle.
No one will ever be the GOAT for me because I loathe the whole concept of picking one person as the best of all time. I've been fighting against that endlessly. I don't like comparing eras. But that's just my view.

As for this era - right now - I think it's awfully close. I sort of think Nadal is falling to #2 or #3 because of a combination of injuries and inability to produce enough big wins on faster surfaces, BUT: surely being such an incredibly dominant player on clay is going to make him a guy who will never be forgotten.

As for the competition between Fed and Djokovic, the 6 years difference in age makes it hard. It is so clear that Fed was the better player up until 2011, and historically we have always judged a player up to around 30, with Laver getting the GS at 30-31. With Djokovic sitting on 3 majors after turning 31, he has the possibility of outdoing Laver by holdomg all four at the age of 31-32, but that assumes RG. Novak's level right now is hard to judge. He looked great at the AO, not so good at the WTF and after AO, so we have to watch.
 
No one will ever be the GOAT for me because I loathe the whole concept of picking one person as the best of all time. I've been fighting against that endlessly. I don't like comparing eras. But that's just my view.

As for this era - right now - I think it's awfully close. I sort of think Nadal is falling to #2 or #3 because of a combination of injuries and inability to produce enough big wins on faster surfaces, BUT: surely being such an incredibly dominant player on clay is going to make him a guy who will never be forgotten.

As for the competition between Fed and Djokovic, the 6 years difference in age makes it hard. It is so clear that Fed was the better player up until 2011, and historically we have always judged a player up to around 30, with Laver getting the GS at 30-31. With Djokovic sitting on 3 majors after turning 31, he has the possibility of outdoing Laver by holdomg all four at the age of 31-32, but that assumes RG. Novak's level right now is hard to judge. He looked great at the AO, not so good at the WTF and after AO, so we have to watch.
The bolded should be put as a sticky that appears above the first post/title of every thread.

:D
 
That is because their story is not over yet...
Absolutely true, but I think the Big Three are a lot closer than three top players were in other eras. One of the reasons is the extended careers, which may be just what we will see now in the future. When ATGs have careers that overlap more, it's going to get more complicate. For me it was very similar for a short while with Connors, Borg and McEnroe, but only Connors kept playing, and his level over age 30 was nothing like the players we see now. I don't think it was possible without modern training methods, physios and all the other extra stuff they have now.
 
Last edited:
No one will ever be the GOAT for me because I loathe the whole concept of picking one person as the best of all time. I've been fighting against that endlessly. I don't like comparing eras. But that's just my view.

As for this era - right now - I think it's awfully close. I sort of think Nadal is falling to #2 or #3 because of a combination of injuries and inability to produce enough big wins on faster surfaces, BUT: surely being such an incredibly dominant player on clay is going to make him a guy who will never be forgotten.

As for the competition between Fed and Djokovic, the 6 years difference in age makes it hard. It is so clear that Fed was the better player up until 2011, and historically we have always judged a player up to around 30, with Laver getting the GS at 30-31. With Djokovic sitting on 3 majors after turning 31, he has the possibility of outdoing Laver by holdomg all four at the age of 31-32, but that assumes RG. Novak's level right now is hard to judge. He looked great at the AO, not so good at the WTF and after AO, so we have to watch.
I agree with the "No One single GOAT" theory too. I was just approaching it from a perspective of if there was one, then who would it be. I don't like the idea that two full straight slams have no value at all. Is it simply because it's been so long since Laver and a lot of tennis fans are just uncertain what to make of the concept and how to rate it. What if Agassi had 10 slams with a CYGS/NCYGS. Would Sampras still have been regarded greater than him just for 4 more slams (with not even a RG final)? Points to ponder. At least with Sampras v/s Agassi, the former was far more dominant outside the slams but Nole is pretty good at holding onto the no.1 ranking when he gets it too, so not much to choose there either between him and Fed.
 
If you look at the state of his biggest challengers on both streaks you will know why what you say is bogus.

Just compare Del Potro from 2009 and 2018 and tell me with a straight face that he was the same (quality) player.

:cool:
2009 Fed like 2009 Delpo where faster more damaging on both sides than today.
Delpo was 80-82kg in 2009 vs 98-102k 2018-2019 playing weight.

Todays ATP/LTA selfie homogenized tour is on its last legs of court craft tennis.
Soon crafty all court tennis will be a distant memory like serve and volley are.
 
2009 Fed like 2009 Delpo where faster more damaging on both sides than today.
Delpo was 80-82kg in 2009 vs 98-102k 2018-2019 playing weight.

Todays ATP/LTA selfie homogenized tour is on its last legs of court craft tennis.
Soon crafty all court tennis will be a distant memory like serve and volley are.
That's like 180 pounds. There's no way a 6'6" guy with a big frame and big legs weighs anything under 195-200. Delpo recently I agree was probably around 215-220. Dimitrov is probably like 180 and he's a skinny 6'2" guy.
 
Absolutely true, but I think the Big Three are a lot closer than three top players were in other eras. One of the reasons is the extended careers, which may be just what we will see now in the future. When ATGs have careers that overlap more, it's going to get more complicate. For me it was very similar for a short while with Connors, Borg and McEnroe, but only Connors kept playing, and his level over age 30 was nothing like the players we see now. I don't think it was possible without modern training methods, physios and all the other extra stuff they have now.
Agree
 
That's like 180 pounds. There's no way a 6'6" guy with a big frame and big legs weighs anything under 195-200. Delpo recently I agree was probably around 215-220. Dimitrov is probably like 180 and he's a skinny 6'2" guy.
Delpo jat 19/20 had a skinny Azev like frame but with less muscle than gym training Azev.
Playing weights were on the 09 US Open highlights at the start, see them for yourself.
He could chase balls down easily in those years not just cause of youth. He was tall and light.
 
Is it easier to win all four titles when one plays completely different to the other three, or is it easier to win all four titles when all four tournaments only play slightly different to each other?
Probably easier in Laver's day due to surfaces, lack of depth in world tennis and apathy towards the Australian Open by many top players.
 
Top