So basically, have we all admitted to ourselves Novak is > Fedal?

[Neptune]

It was too strong for Nadal.

Crazy 2021 Tsitsipas, down 0-2 against Rafa at AO, up 2-0 against Nole at FO.

 

[Neptune]

stat padding.

The REAL instance of career stat-padding or inflation occurs in two scenarios:

Clearly fewer challenging matches such as those against top 5 and top 10 players, lower average opponent rank, lower average opponent Elo rating, etc.

Inflated difficulty of tough matches, where winning against an opponent on their weakest surface may be considered less genuine. For instance, a match against Pete is less challenging on clay than on hard court or grass.

 

[RS]

This is boring. Same arguments over and over.

 

[mike danny]

This is boring. Same arguments over and over.

TTW in a nutshell you mean?

 

[Razer]

Fed won all 5 USO while Novak and Nadal were still kids. Even 35 year old Agassi was close to push Fed to 5 sets. In 2010's Fed reached only 1 time final! And H2H is 3-3.. Fed has positive H2H on hard against Novak in Cinci and Shanghai but in total H2H on hard is 20-18. As I wrote it is not close as Nadal domination but consider that most of the players play their best on hard, not on clay. In total, number of titles + win rate makes Novak best hard court player.

It is Novak's luck that he was a kid, not the other way round. Djoker is mediocre at the USO, 2 US open wins in his first 10 attempts from 2007 till 2016, losing to almost everyone, and you want him to face 2004-2006 Federer as well ? Are you serious ?

Just dont glorify Novak at US open just because he happens to be the goat now overall..... Djoker bageled at Cinci by Fed..... Nole is that horrible.

 

[mike danny]

Was Federer's era from 2003-2007 a normal era?

Borg and Pete had also dominated in their time even if not to the same extent or in the same short period, but it's not like Fed was the first to dominate the game.

A player in his mid 30's doing it though is certainly much more unprecedented.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Can we all just agree Sinner aint no Bill Tilden and neither is Djokovic

 

[NoleFam]

You talk as if all of those losses were bad losses.

Mentioning losses from like this slump/injury-ridden years is pointless since we know why he lost those matches.

The losses to Berdych and Tsonga at Wimb weren't pretty but Djokovic lost to Querrey and retired against Berdych at the same ages.

Don't see why you bring up losses to Djokovic here since Djokovic lost to Stan at the same age and didn't even play the USO at 30.

The only bad losses were Seppi and Gulbis in normal seasons, that's it. Losing to in form Berdych at the USO wasn't a bad loss when you look at the entire context.

Most people who aren't Federer fans have a clear agenda to overcriticize that era.

Some of those were pretty bad losses and some weren't. The bolded is true but he also lost in 2013 and 2016 when Djokovic won it at those ages. I've pretty much went over most of this already and that post was really just talking about why he only win 2 Slams during that period.

 

[fedfan24]

Some of those were pretty bad losses and some weren't. The bolded is true but he also lost in 2013 and 2016 when Djokovic won it at those ages. I've pretty much went over most of this already and that post was really just talking about why he only win 2 Slams during that period.

2010-2016 Federer in 2017-2023 in place of Djokovic wins at least 10-12 slams rather than 2. #luckovic

 

[mike danny]

Some of those were pretty bad losses and some weren't. The bolded is true but he also lost in 2013 and 2016 when Djokovic won it at those ages. I've pretty much went over most of this already and that post was really just talking about why he only win 2 Slams during that period.

Federer had 2, Djokovic 4. Not a huge difference

 

[NoleFam]

Federer had 2, Djokovic 4. Not a huge difference

At the ages Federer was in 2010-2015? Djokovic won a lot more than 4.

 

[mike danny]

At the ages Federer was in 2010-2015? Djokovic won a lot more than 4.

Thought we were talking 28.5-31.

 

[NoleFam]

Thought we were talking 28.5-31.

The post I replied to said 2010-2015.

 

[mike danny]

The post I replied to said 2010-2015.

Ok, apologies, these days I just skim through these kinds of threads instead of reading carefully.

Although I do think it is unfair to say Fed wasn’t good enough considering many of his great runs at 30-34 compared to what Djokovic had.

 

[NoleFam]

Ok, apologies, these days I just skim through these kinds of threads instead of reading carefully.

Although I do think it is unfair to say Fed wasn’t good enough considering many of his great runs at 30-34 compared to what Djokovic had.

No worries.

Not good enough in quite a few matches against players who he was better than. That's the difference.

 

[mike danny]

No worries.

Not good enough in quite a few matches against players who he was better than. That's the difference.

Yes, but only the Gulbis and Seppi losses were truly bad.

 

[NoleFam]

Yes, but only the Gulbis and Seppi losses were truly bad.

Losses to Stakhovsky and Robredo don't qualify as bad?

 

[messiahrobins]

Brazil is definitely the most succesful football (not soccer) country, which else should it be? What do you mean with "modern day"?

Modern day and id say its France. Brazil have not had a good team in over 20 years now.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Modern day and id say its France. Brazil have not had a good team in over 20 years now.

Well still in 2010 they were a disaster. Same in 2002. If modern day starts in 2016 then yes likely France. Agree that Brazil is a joke since and including 2006.

 

[messiahrobins]

Well still in 2010 they were a disaster. Same in 2002. If modern day starts in 2016 then yes likely France. Agree that Brazil is a joke since and including 2006.

Brazil were woeful in 2006. Just a collectionnof indiduals nike insisted had to play. Ronaldo adriano ronadinho and kaka could simply not play in the same team but nike insisted all four did.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Brazil were woeful in 2006. Just a collectionnof indiduals nike insisted had to play. Ronaldo adriano ronadinho and kaka could simply not play in the same team but nike insisted all four did.

Ronaldinho was the biggest disappointment in that WC which should have been his time to shine.

 

[messiahrobins]

Ronaldinho was the biggest disappointment in that WC which should have been his time to shine.

If brazil had had a good tough manager thsy would have won 1998 2006 2014 world cups. Sadly all three of those events they were like the harlem globe trotters where it was all anput getting the big names out regardless of form.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

If brazil had had a good tough manager thsy would have won 1998 2006 2014 world cups. Sadly all three of those events they were like the harlem globe trotters where it was all anput getting the big names out regardless of form.

1998 they would. That Beavis and Butthead duo of Zagallo and Zico messed it up by throwing out Romario and got Bebeto in instead who was Lobo's fav. 2014 they would not have won regardless of the manager. Scolari was not bad actually. Also Dunga was underrated as a manager. They should have given him another shot.

 

[RS]

Brazil's men's football slump vs US men's tennis slump?

 

[messiahrobins]

1998 they would. That Beavis and Butthead duo of Zagallo and Zico messed it up by throwing out Romario and got Bebeto in instead who was Lobo's fav. 2014 they would not have won regardless of the manager. Scolari was not bad actually. Also Dunga was underrated as a manager. They should have given him another shot.

Madness tomplay bebeto. Also had romario been fit in 1990 brazil likely win that world cup. Agree about dunga. That tite who managed them last 2 wor,d cups was a clown.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Madness tomplay bebeto. Also had romario been fit in 1990 brazil likely win that world cup. Agree about dunga. That tite who managed them last 2 wor,d cups was a clown.

Played only 65 minutes against Scotland I think, but he was already world class as becoming evident in the 89 Copa America. The 90 WC was one of the weakest anyways, so yes with a good Romario they could well have won.

 

[mike danny]

Losses to Stakhovsky and Robredo don't qualify as bad?

They do, but they took place in his bad season like Istomin and Chung for Djokovic.

 

[StrongRule]

Yes, but only the Gulbis and Seppi losses were truly bad.

The loss to Gulbis wasn't that terrible. Losing to his pigeon Wawrinka in straight sets was arguably a worse performance.

 

[BrooklynNY]

seeing @TMF in this thread in 2024 is hilarious.

I still remember this guy just copy/pasting "17 > 14" anytime someone would try to mention Sampras being a decent player.

Now Djokovic is taking every meaningful record in tennis and most of the important ones Fed had, soon to be the oldest number 1 of all time!


Tennis Karma has been awesome to watch the last 15 years

 

[Holmes]

seeing @TMF in this thread in 2024 is hilarious.

I still remember this guy just copy/pasting "17 > 14" anytime someone would try to mention Sampras being a decent player.

Now Djokovic is taking every meaningful record in tennis and most of the important ones Fed had, soon to be the oldest number 1 of all time!


Tennis Karma has been awesome to watch the last 15 years

I have often wondered why my friend @TMF took down so many of the stats he regularly posted in his signature. It seems as though you are suggesting that he was only posting them to score points in the pettiest way possible in "gotcha" fashion in order to avoid thinking debate. I just want to be sure: am I reading that right, or am I mischaracterizing your stance?

 

[Silentchimera]

@BrooklynNY I do not believe it makes someone a greater mario kart player by winning a few more cups on 50cc than someone playing on 200cc lol.

Those old and shallow arguments you refer to citing the most well known statistics were never good and nothing has changed.

The numbers are objective, they only have meaning in the context of those very specific circumstances.

The context is open to interpretation in a GOAT debate and nobody is right or wrong in this debate when greatness is subjective and depends on what each individual values most to achieve greatness.

When I think about what it means to me to be the greatest, Federer is still ahead of Djokovic! One of the main reasons is that Federer had a far greater positive impact on the sport. Federer also has the stats on his side when I look at the context.

I also think Muhammad Ali is greater than Floyd Mayweather for his positive impact on the sport despite his inferior record at first glance of his wiki page.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Those old and shallow arguments citing the most well known statistics were never good and nothing has changed lol.

The numbers are context in themselves but they only have meaning in the context for those very specific circumstances.

The context is open to interpretation in a GOAT debate and nobody is right or wrong in this debate when greatness is subjective and depends on what each individual values most to achieve greatness.

When I think about what it means to me to be the greatest, Federer is still ahead of Djokovic! One of those reasons among many others is that Federer had a far greater positive impact on the sport.

I also think believe Muhammad Ali is greater than Floyd Mayweather for these very reasons despite his inferior record largely for these very reasons.

People can't distinguish and comprehend how the most successful of all time doesn't mean greatest of all time.

The only thing they can do is herp derp look at the numbers derrrppp

 

[Neptune]

People can't distinguish and comprehend how the most successful of all time doesn't mean greatest of all time.

The only thing they can do is herp derp look at the numbers derrrppp

Contemplate these clues if you have the capacity:
Draws especially Slam draws
Career wins against top5
Career wins against top10
Career wins against opponent with Elo>=2400
Career wins against opponent with Elo>=2300
Average Opponent Rank
Average Opponent Elo Rating

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Contemplate these clues if you have the capacity:
Draws especially Slam draws
Career wins against top5
Career wins against top10
Career wins against opponent with Elo>=2400
Career wins against opponent with Elo>=2300
Average Opponent Rank
Average Opponent Elo Rating

"Look at the numbers durrrrrrppppp"

 

[Eureka]

Those old and shallow arguments citing the most well known statistics were never good and nothing has changed lol.

The numbers are context in themselves but they only have meaning in the context for those very specific circumstances.

The context is open to interpretation in a GOAT debate and nobody is right or wrong in this debate when greatness is subjective and depends on what each individual values most to achieve greatness.

When I think about what it means to me to be the greatest, Federer is still ahead of Djokovic! One of those reasons among many others is that Federer had a far greater positive impact on the sport.

I also think believe Muhammad Ali is greater than Floyd Mayweather for these very reasons despite his inferior record at first glance of his wiki page.

Hear! Hear! on all fronts. Superb comment.

 

[Holic]

Boring topic

 

[TMF]

seeing @TMF in this thread in 2024 is hilarious.

I still remember this guy just copy/pasting "17 > 14" anytime someone would try to mention Sampras being a decent player.

Now Djokovic is taking every meaningful record in tennis and most of the important ones Fed had, soon to be the oldest number 1 of all time!

You're wrong.

I never ever believe most slams = GOAT, and I've mentioned a zillion time that most slam is never be-all and end-all.

Court has the most slams, but I've always maintained that Graf had the most impressive career despite having less slams, and that was way before Federer moves ahead of Sampras 14 slams.

Capiche ?

 

[Holmes]

You very much can argue against him.

If none of the three men won another slam, I can guarantee that, when looking back in decades to come, many would favour the Swiss and the Spaniard over the Serb.

Thankfully Novak has saved us the effort of having to compare relatively equal resumes with his rivals by putting together one that is vastly superior.

Sidenote: 14 pages, 14 slams, bud.

 

[SonnyT]

LeBron can win 10 rings & you’ll still never convince anybody he’s better than Jordan. And maybe he would be but honestly nobody would give a sh*t either. Same goes for Djokovic. Outside of Serbia & apart from his club level pusher fans, nobody cares. In 10 years people will still be talking about 2008 Wimby, 2017 AusOpen & Nadal’s 13 RG titles. And Djokovic will be remembered as a consistent player who got really angry often & hit a line judge.

Congrats on 19 though

If LeBron wins 10, that will convince a lot of people that he is the GOAT, since 10 >> 6.

The trouble is he has only four, with no clear path to the playoffs, let alone the championship.

What does hitting a line judge has anything to do with being the GOAT?

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Thankfully Novak has saved us the effort of having to compare relatively equal resumes with his rivals by putting together one that is vastly superior.

Sidenote: 14 pages, 14 slams, bud.

Indeed with this he has achieved SOAT (successfullest of all time) no debate but it does not prove GOAT (greatest)

 

[Holmes]

Indeed with this he has achieved SOAT (successfullest of all time) no debate but it does not prove GOAT (greatest)

Indeed. He is joined in the debate by other giants of the game such as Mochizuki, Lock, Hijikata and Kumar, each with valid arguments to claim the title of GOAT for himself. And of course, let us never forget Roger Federer, the man in the distinguished tier of the Edbergs, Beckers, and Couriers of the game.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Thankfully Novak has saved us the effort of having to compare relatively equal resumes with his rivals by putting together one that is vastly superior.

Sidenote: 14 pages, 14 slams, bud.

I wouldn't say "vastly" though, they are in the same tier. But "clearly" would be more apt.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Indeed with this he has achieved SOAT (successfullest of all time) no debate but it does not prove GOAT (greatest)

Funny how this distinction was nonexistent until it was convenient.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Funny how this distinction was nonexistent until it was convenient.

That is because Djokovic made it abundantly clear that there existed a distinction that needed to be made

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Indeed. He is joined in the debate not only by Roger, but by other giants of the game such as Mochizuki, Lock, Hijikata and Kumar, each with valid arguments to claim the title of GOAT for himself.

Thank you for bringing Kumar to my attention he may indeed be the true GOAT

 

[Bender]

42>24 bud

 

[Silentchimera]

Indeed. He is joined in the debate by other giants of the game such as Mochizuki, Lock, Hijikata and Kumar, each with valid arguments to claim the title of GOAT for himself. And of course, let us never forget Roger Federer, the man in the distinguished tier of the Edbergs, Beckers, and Couriers of the game.

Always get a laugh out of your posts...

 

[Silentchimera]

Boring topic

What is there for you to debate?