Stats the big 3 need to become the goat

Status
Not open for further replies.
mike danny said:
Fed is the first male player to change the prefix of the slam count to 2. He has distanced himself from all the decima slam winners. Several players have won between 10 and 19 slams, only one player has won 20.

You can underestimate it if you want, but I can assure you winning that extra slam to rise from 19 to 20 is very difficult.
Click to expand...

What, are you serious?
 
mike danny said:
I agree it's not absolute. But having more slams automatically eliminates any doubt and any need for debate.

If Djokovic ends with 18 slams but with better stats in all the other departments, the debates will never end.
Click to expand...


If he gets all the stats and wins more Slams than Federer, those who lived the era will debate endlessly anyway on the grounds that Djokovic played much more of his career in conditions that fit best into his wheelhouse. Federer has been swimming upstream against the general shifting conditions now for most of his career and most of his prime (by prime meaning a period where he can contend for Slams, so 2003-now.. not the usual prime). This easily makes up for Djokovic's harder gig in having to break through the tyrannical Fedal to get going, so there's no excuse for him to not reach ~20 IF he's as good as Fed.

So, we'll see. He looks as good as Fed to me.
 
125downthemiddle said:
What, are you serious?
Click to expand...
I just think 20 slams is more significant because there is only one male player to get to this number, while there are several with 10 to 19 slams. It's about changing the prefix.

Of course, I don't expect others to see it like this, but that's my opinion. I don't simply see it as a number 1 unit higher than 19.
 
mike danny said:
It's ok, we don't have to see it the same way.

To me, number 20 has more significance than any number from 10 to 19. If it is such whooptidoo, surely more than 1 player would have got to 20.
Click to expand...


There is not a shred of logic in this statement.

That's a genuine headscratcher. It's like saying if 10 Championships is such a whooptidoo in F1 then surely 1 driver would have reached the landmark by now.

That's not how it works. It goes in gradations.
 
-NN- said:
If he gets all the stats and wins more Slams than Federer, those who lived the era will debate endlessly anyway on the grounds that Djokovic played much more of his career in conditions that fit best into his wheelhouse. Federer has been swimming upstream against the general shifting conditions now for most of his career and most of his prime (by prime meaning a period where he can contend for Slams, so 2003-now.. not the usual prime). This easily makes up for Djokovic's harder gig in having to break through the tyrannical Fedal to get going, so there's no excuse for him to not reach ~20 IF he's as good as Fed.

So, we'll see. He looks as good as Fed to me.
Click to expand...
I do consider him as good as Fed. Just not as great. Yet. With big emphasis on "yet".
 
mike danny said:
It's ok, we don't have to see it the same way.

To me, number 20 has more significance than any number from 10 to 19. If it is such whooptidoo, surely more than 1 player would have got to 20.
Click to expand...

But according to who, wich official person or organisation/federation, has stated that slam count is the determining factor of who is better/greater? There is no fact that this is evidence of superiority.
 
-NN- said:
There is not a shred of logic in this statement.

That's a genuine headscratcher. It's like saying if 10 Championships is such a whooptidoo in F1 then surely 1 driver would have reached the landmark by now.

That's not how it works. It goes in gradations.
Click to expand...
I see it as Fed going one level up. To me it's not just about 20 being one unit higher than 19. Changing the prefix is a big deal in men's tennis since it's incredible difficult. Like I said, several players have won between 10 and 19 majors, only one has changed the prefix.

It's ok if we see it differently.
 
mike danny said:
I see it as Fed going one level up. To me it's not just about 20 being one unit higher than 19. Changing the prefix is a big deal in men's tennis since it's incredible difficult. Like I said, several players have won between 10 and 19 majors, only one has changed the prefix.

It's ok if we see it differently.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious
 
giphy.gif
 
125downthemiddle said:
You can't be serious
Click to expand...
That's how I see it. Winning 20 majors in men's tennis is a big deal since it's the first time it has happened. It's not something trivial.

It's just something I think, I'm not going to adhere blindly to it. It's fine if other people disagree with me, since I do admit it's unusual what I say.
 
RF-18 said:
But according to who, wich official person or organisation/federation, has stated that slam count is the determining factor of who is better/greater? There is no fact that this is evidence of superiority.
Click to expand...
What decides GOAT is as subjective as it comes. In my subjective view, slams come first, even though they aren't the be all end all.
 
GabeT said:
Don’t disagree. My point is that once we accept that you can’t simply rely on Slam wins (as you and I agree but many here don’t) then you have to look at the whole set of achievements (slams, masters, time at 1, WTF) and different people will reach different conclusions. Like @Ann said, it’s all subjective anyway.

For me the big 3 are very close to each other. None has a clear and unequivocal advantage across the board. They all have reached incredible records that may not be broken for decades. They have shown levels of dominance that are unique. Right now Nole is a bit behind but not by much IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't want to have animosity with anyone here so please don't take this post as a declaration of war.:D

The GOAT is not subjective because among everyone who's ever played the game one person had the most skills and achieved the most even if by a very small margin. Subjectivity comes in our evaluation of achievements, skills, and talent. So many people see it differently and arguments get more and more complicated with new statistics and quality factors like CYGS, double career Slams and whatnot being drawn to the discussion.

However, there are certain metrics that are widely accepted as defining. This thread is about those, and you used them in our argument meaning you agree with these metrics to a certain extent. So because of this, I don't understand why you think the Big 3 are very close to each other. How is it Federer leads in practically every category by significant numbers with a little chance of being surpassed in the immediate future but he is not clearly better than his rivals in your view? That comes off very biased to me. I would know because I'm biased myself (obviously) and sometimes just want to write 20> whatever number, but I think it's more interesting to have honest discussions and find true answers to questions.
 
mike danny said:
I just think 20 slams is more significant because there is only one male player to get to this number, while there are several with 10 to 19 slams. It's about changing the prefix.

Of course, I don't expect others to see it like this, but that's my opinion. I don't simply see it as a number 1 unit higher than 19.
Click to expand...
Not to get all technical but yes, it is simply a number one unit higher than 19. That’s all it is. The reason you see a difference is because we use a decimal system, so that adding 1 to 19 moves it to the next group of ten. But if someone who grew up using a different base number system looked at this they wouldn’t understand what’s the big deal from moving from 19 to 20.
 
GabeT said:
Not to get all technical but yes, it is simply a number one unit higher than 19. That’s all it is. The reason you see a difference is because we use a decimal system, so that adding 1 to 19 moves it to the next group of ten. But if someone who grew up using a different base number system looked at this they wouldn’t understand what’s the big deal from moving from 19 to 20.
Click to expand...
Well the same reason why changine the prefix of your age is a pretty big deal. 19 to 20, 29 to 30 etc.
 
The Fedfather said:
I don't want to have animosity with anyone here so please don't take this post as a declaration of war.:D

The GOAT is not subjective because among everyone who's ever played the game one person had the most skills and achieved the most even if by a very small margin. Subjectivity comes in our evaluation of achievements, skills, and talent. So many people see it differently and arguments get more and more complicated with new statistics and quality factors like CYGS, double career Slams and whatnot being drawn to the discussion.

However, there are certain metrics that are widely accepted as defining. This thread is about those, and you used them in our argument meaning you agree with these metrics to a certain extent. So because of this, I don't understand why you think the Big 3 are very close to each other. How is it Federer leads in practically every category by significant numbers with a little chance of being surpassed in the immediate future but he is not clearly better than his rivals in your view? That comes off very biased to me. I would know because I'm biased myself (obviously) and sometimes just want to write 20> whatever number, but I think it's more interesting to have honest discussions and find true answers to questions.
Click to expand...
Because when I look at those metrics I don’t see such huge differences as you point out. And a lot of those differences are such that Nole is close to tying or even beating.

Compare with Nole:

Fed doesn’t lead in masters. Let’s start there.

He leads in WTf but only by one. That could change a month from now.

He leads in YE1 but, again, that could change in a month from now.

He is tied in the AO. he is tied in the FO. Both can easily change in Nole’s favor in the next year or so.

The only place where Fed very clearly leads is in Wimbledon and the USO. This is great. But it hardly qualifies as leading in practically every category.

There are also other intangibles. For me the 2015 season was the greatest in the Open Era. Fed had an incredible and unequaled run in the 18/19 slam finals but Nole had something equally incredible in 2015/16, ending with holding all four slams, the wtf, 5 of the 9 masters, and 3 masters runner ups. No one has ever even come close to anything like that.

I think Fed went through an incredible period during the 18/19 run and many at the time thought no one could ever come close to that level of dominance. But both Nadal and Nole showed they could also,reach very high levels of dominance, different but arguably equally important as Fed’s.

So today, when I look at all three, I see incredible accomplishments, with Fed ahead but not by that much.

Let’s not forget that Fed’s claim to be GOAT relies enormously on him deciding not to retire at 35, something which would have been perfectly normal. So far Nole and Nadal are generally winning more post 27 than Fed did at the same agee, so that both have plenty of opportunities to close the gap or even go beyond.
 
GabeT said:
Because when I look at those metrics I don’t see such huge differences as you point out. And a lot of those differences are such that Nole is close to tying or even beating.

Compare with Nole:

Fed doesn’t lead in masters. Let’s start there.

He leads in WTf but only by one. That could change a month from now.

He leads in YE1 but, again, that could change in a month from now.

He is tied in the AO. he is tied in the FO. Both can easily change in Nole’s favor in the next year or so.

The only place where Fed very clearly leads is in Wimbledon and the USO. This is great. But it hardly qualifies as leading in practically every category.

There are also other intangibles. For me the 2015 season was the greatest in the Open Era. Fed had an incredible and unequaled run in the 18/19 slam finals but Nole had something equally incredible in 2015/16, ending with holding all four slams, the wtf, 5 of the 9 masters, and 3 masters runner ups. No one has ever even come close to anything like that.

I think Fed went through an incredible period during the 18/19 run and many at the time thought no one could ever come close to that level of dominance. But both Nadal and Nole showed they could also,reach very high levels of dominance, different but arguably equally important as Fed’s.

So today, when I look at all three, I see incredible accomplishments, with Fed ahead but not by that much.

Let’s not forget that Fed’s claim to be GOAT relies enormously on him deciding not to retire at 35, something which would have been perfectly normal. So far Nole and Nadal are generally winning more post 27 than Fed did at the same agee, so that both have plenty of opportunities to close the gap or even go beyond.
Click to expand...
Fed has a significant lead in weeks at number 1 too.

Nole also never won any slam 5 consecutive times.
 
The Fedfather said:
I don't want to have animosity with anyone here so please don't take this post as a declaration of war.:D

The GOAT is not subjective because among everyone who's ever played the game one person had the most skills and achieved the most even if by a very small margin.
Click to expand...
But you can only rate who was the greatest by some statistics. No one really knows how Nadal or Federer would have fared against Borg.

I know who I believe is GOAT as does everyone else on this board and I'll bet dollars to donuts if everyone gave their honest opinion, there'd be a helluva lot more than 3 people named.
 
mike danny said:
Fed has a significant lead in weeks at number 1 too.

Nole also never won any slam 5 consecutive times.
Click to expand...
True and relevant on the weeks at number 1. One of the reasons I think Fed remains ahead today. We’ll see where Nole ends on that.

I have a harder time assessing the importance of winning 5 in a row. Sure, that’s an indication of consistency. But if you win 5 slams over, say, 10 years, that’s also an indication of longevity. Why would one be better than the other? Aren’t both relevant?
 
oldmanfan said:
Then you're being way too generous here.

I'd have to give the edge to Sampras if Fed had retired with 14 slams. Sampras was first to 14 slams, and first takes precedence. I'd consider Djokodal as even with Fed if they won 22-23 slams, especially with how poor their younger gens are. 20 is not enough.

Fed lost 10 slam finals to players 5+ years younger than him.
Djokodal lost a combined 'zero' slam finals to anyone 3+ years younger, let alone 5+ years younger. The youngsters are making it way too easy for Djokodal. So much so that even Fed is beating them, and he's older than Djokodal by 5+ years.
Click to expand...
Djok lost 6 slam finals to players 5+ years older than him.
Federer lost a combined 'zero' slam finals to anyone his age or older, let alone 3+ years older. Fed's generation made it way too easy for Federer. So much so that even Nadal was beating them, and he's younger than Federer by 5 years.

Listen, keep trying it. For every "2010 and after it is weak" there's a "pre-2010 was weak" argument to be had. Sure, I can agree with precedence, as long as other achievements are similar. But saying Nadal needs to win 3 extra slams to even tie Federer is just ridiculous. So what, someone needs 25 slams to outdo Sampras because Sampras had legit competition, unlike these Big 3 who had only each other?

Let the numbers speak for themselves. In the same vein that Federer bested all his rivals, Djokodal suppress any new rivals. Federer suppresses them too, given as he's just such a great player. There's an argument on any side you choose to take, so let's not try to adjust for weak eras.
 
Isn't it ''incroyable'' how so many Novak fanbois and fangurlz are coming to the fore now?

But they still can't get away from his Olympic failures.
 
GabeT said:
True and relevant on the weeks at number 1. One of the reasons I think Fed remains ahead today. We’ll see where Nole ends on that.

I have a harder time assessing the importance of winning 5 in a row. Sure, that’s an indication of consistency. But if you win 5 slams over, say, 10 years, that’s also an indication of longevity. Why would one be better than the other? Aren’t both relevant?
Click to expand...
Fed has both the dominance and longevity so it doesn't matter too much.

Novak has the dominance and so far the longevity too. I'm just mentioning things Nole lacks. Several ATG have won a slam 5 times in a row, like Fed, Nadal and Borg.
 
mike danny said:
Fed has both the dominance and longevity so it doesn't matter too much.

Novak has the dominance and so far the longevity too. I'm just mentioning things Nole lacks. Several ATG have won a slam 5 times in a row, like Fed, Nadal and Borg.
Click to expand...
My point was that why would winning 5 in a row be better than winning 5 over 10 years?
 
GabeT said:
Because when I look at those metrics I don’t see such huge differences as you point out. And a lot of those differences are such that Nole is close to tying or even beating.

Compare with Nole:

Fed doesn’t lead in masters. Let’s start there.

He leads in WTf but only by one. That could change a month from now.

He leads in YE1 but, again, that could change in a month from now.

He is tied in the AO. he is tied in the FO. Both can easily change in Nole’s favor in the next year or so.

The only place where Fed very clearly leads is in Wimbledon and the USO. This is great. But it hardly qualifies as leading in practically every category.

There are also other intangibles. For me the 2015 season was the greatest in the Open Era. Fed had an incredible and unequaled run in the 18/19 slam finals but Nole had something equally incredible in 2015/16, ending with holding all four slams, the wtf, 5 of the 9 masters, and 3 masters runner ups. No one has ever even come close to anything like that.

I think Fed went through an incredible period during the 18/19 run and many at the time thought no one could ever come close to that level of dominance. But both Nadal and Nole showed they could also,reach very high levels of dominance, different but arguably equally important as Fed’s.

So today, when I look at all three, I see incredible accomplishments, with Fed ahead but not by that much.

Let’s not forget that Fed’s claim to be GOAT relies enormously on him deciding not to retire at 35, something which would have been perfectly normal. So far Nole and Nadal are generally winning more post 27 than Fed did at the same agee, so that both have plenty of opportunities to close the gap or even go beyond.
Click to expand...
Could is different from will. A couple of months ago Novak looked average at best, and then his form just flipped and he's getting back to his best now but there is nothing that suggests that at this late stage of his career even a player like Djokovic will maintain such form for long. But even if he does win 2 more Slams and WTF that still leaves him 4 Slams and months and months weeks at #1 behind Federer with no big advantage anywhere but Masters. This is literally some great players' careers worth of achievements.
It's not close and it is definitely not very close.

Suppose 2015 is the greatest season, by how much is it greater than 2006 f.e. (not going for earlier periods with McEnroe or Laver)? You don't consider a 4 Slam difference significant to distance players from each other in terms of greatness but winning 4 Slams in a row plus some Masters is supposed to be an incredible "nobody came close to that" achievement?:confused:
 
mike danny said:
Fed is the first male player to change the prefix of the slam count to 2. He has distanced himself from all the decima slam winners. Several players have won between 10 and 19 slams, only one player has won 20.

You can underestimate it if you want, but I can assure you winning that extra slam to rise from 19 to 20 is very difficult.
Click to expand...
One of most arbitrary criterias I've seen here. What about hexadecimal GS count, where all big3 are in same hexadecima? :)

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
The Fedfather said:
Could is different from will. A couple of months ago Novak looked average at best, and then his form just flipped and he's getting back to his best now but there is nothing that suggests that at this late stage of his career even a player like Djokovic will maintain such form for long. But even if he does win 2 more Slams and WTF that still leaves him 4 Slams and months and months weeks at #1 behind Federer with no big advantage anywhere but Masters. This is literally some great players' careers worth of achievements.
It's not close and it is definitely not very close.

Suppose 2015 is the greatest season, by how much is it greater than 2006 f.e. (not going for earlier periods with McEnroe or Laver)? You don't consider a 4 Slam difference significant to distance players from each other in terms of greatness but winning 4 Slams in a row plus some Masters is supposed to be an incredible "nobody came close to that" achievement?:confused:
Click to expand...
I think if Nole doesn’t catch up in time at number 1 then Fed’s slam advantage places him ahead. Clearly.

On the other hand if Nole does win the WTF and two more slams (in the scenario you and I are discussing) he will narrow the time at number 1 gap significantly. He’s only one YE1 and 80 weeks behind. The WTF seals this YE1, and another two slams probably leaves Nole as number 1 until late next year. That’s possibly another 50 weeks. If he wins a few masters as well it could push the number of weeks even further and give him a sixth YE1.

On the 2015 season: I think the difference is quite small with 2006. Almost negligible.

On the 4 slams in a row: I was simply pointing out that while Fed has some incredible runs (18/19) Nole has had some as well.

I want to point out that, at the end of the day, my view of Nole is not reliant on how much he wins from now on. If Nole magically wins another 7 slams I won’t think higher of him. I already know he has the skill set. Same thing with Nadal or Fed. If either went on a tear and won several more slams that would be great for them. But their status is safe. Would you think less of Federer if he had retired at 35 and today Nadal had the same or more slams (assuming Nadal won AO17)?
 
GabeT said:
I think if Nole doesn’t catch up in time at number 1 then Fed’s slam advantage places him ahead. Clearly.

On the other hand if Nole does win the WTF and two more slams (in the scenario you and I are discussing) he will narrow the time at number 1 gap significantly. He’s only one YE1 and 80 weeks behind. The WTF seals this YE1, and another two slams probably leaves Nole as number 1 until late next year. That’s possibly another 50 weeks. If he wins a few masters as well it could push the number of weeks even further and give him a sixth YE1.

On the 2015 season: I think the difference is quite small with 2006. Almost negligible.

On the 4 slams in a row: I was simply pointing out that while Fed has some incredible runs (18/19) Nole has had some as well.

I want to point out that, at the end of the day, my view of Nole is not reliant on how much he wins from now on. If Nole magically wins another 7 slams I won’t think higher of him. I already know he has the skill set. Same thing with Nadal or Fed. If either went on a tear and won several more slams that would be great for them. But their status is safe. Would you think less of Federer if he had retired at 35 and today Nadal had the same or more slams (assuming Nadal won AO17)?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think less of Federer had he retired earlier. For me, in my heart, he'd the best. However, achievements shouldn't be ignored in favor of personal bias. It's ridiculous when people say that Nadal's Slam count is worse than someone's with fewer Slams because of clay dominance or that Federer's Slams from 2004-2007 or Djokovic's from 2015 were easy Slams and they count for less or something like that. Had Nadal won more Slams than Federer, 2 more because of other records that Federer has (BTW, I don't hold the WTF against Rafa because he really got the short stick with the surface), I would accept that he is greater than Roger by the most significant metrics in tennis. I do think though that Federer will stand at the top when all is said and done because what he's done in his career seems like a very special thing that won't get repeated for a few generations.
 
Ann said:
You know that's not true. You won't debate it because deep down you already believe Djokovic is GOAT. Many other's will never agree with you.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you actually.

In the event that Novak wins 21 slams (don't see it happening), it's also likely that he'll have a plethora of other achievements in the bag as well........

Many analysts, casuals, and former pros will probably proclaim him as the GOAT. The amount of digging he would have to do since he was a late bloomer would be remembered for ages to come...

And of course his H2H with Nadal and Fed will probably help him. (regardless of how injured/old they are. recency bias is a huge factor)

It's naturally one opinion, whether or not he would be GOAT at 21 slams. But I say 7-8/10 people would probably just say screw it, hes GOAT at that point.
 
GoldenSwing said:
I disagree with you actually.

In the event that Novak wins 21 slams (don't see it happening), it's also likely that he'll have a plethora of other achievements in the bag as well........

Many analysts, casuals, and former pros will probably proclaim him as the GOAT. The amount of digging he would have to do since he was a late bloomer would be remembered for ages to come...

And of course his H2H with Nadal and Fed will probably help him. (regardless of how injured/old they are. recency bias is a huge factor)

It's naturally one opinion, whether or not he would be GOAT at 21 slams. But I say 7-8/10 people would probably just say screw it, hes GOAT at that point.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree (and always will) that you will ever have a consensus on GOAT. It is subjective and it's the main reason I think these threads are so silly.
 
Ann said:
You know that's not true. You won't debate it because deep down you already believe Djokovic is GOAT. Many other's will never agree with you.
Click to expand...
Thank you for analyzing my subconscious realm. Even I wasn't aware of this until you pointed ot out. You opened my eyes.

Fed is GOAT.

Real discussion about Novak's goatness can start if/when he wins 18GS, and that's only if he would overcome Fed's wtf, YEn1 and weeks n1 records.

Until then, it's just fun to read all these comparisons, both reasonable and (specially) unreasonable ones.

That new age concept of subjective truth and personal facts you promote is all nice and poetic, but it fully disregards any objective achievement of any atg, it's too much far away from reality.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
TimHenmanATG said:
No surprise there, then. Because Nole has a big fat 0 Olympic Gold medals in 4 attempts.
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t matter if Novak had 4 OGM’s, they are irrelevant to anyone’s Tennis legacy. The only people touting them are Nadal or Murray fans. And had Roger won a singles OGM, the VB’ers would have dropped the subject, as they did with Davis Cup.
 
itrium84 said:
One of most arbitrary criterias I've seen here. What about hexadecimal GS count, where all big3 are in same hexadecima? :)

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I already explained myself too many times in this thread.

Don't think of 20 as just a number, think of its significance. The first male player to change the prefix. We saw that in women's tennis, but never in men's tennis.
 
Ann said:
You're allergic to anyone that disagrees with you. I don't care about your soul and you've given your opinions 100 times, literacy is the only thing that's required to know them. You don't understand what "new age" actually means, your snark is dropping in effectiveness with every post and you have the sense of humor of a snail. Other than that you seem like you'd be a blast to hang out with at parties.
Click to expand...
Reported for personal attacks
 
CYGS said:
It depends. Djokovic did it with 2 ATGs around, while Fed couldn't even do it with only baby Rafa as his worthy competition. So no.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 1 ATG who sucked (Nadal) and 1 ATG who was very old (Federer).

Nadal was not even in his path anyway.

Fed was too old to beat him in BO5.

Even Wawrinka was taken out for him.

I like how you paint a false picture.

Heck, Federer had Agassi and Nadal if just mentioning ATG is what matters. And Nadal was 100 times better back then than 2015-2016 Nadal.
 
mike danny said:
Yeah, 1 ATG who sucked (Nadal) and 1 ATG who was very old (Federer).

Nadal was not even in his path anyway.

Fed was too old to beat him in BO5.

Even Wawrinka was taken out for him.

I like how you paint a false picture.

Heck, Federer had Agassi and Nadal if just mentioning ATG is what matters. And Nadal was 100 times better back then than 2015-2016 Nadal.
Click to expand...
Same old excuses ain't convincing arguments. Next.
 
CYGS said:
Same old excuses ain't convincing arguments. Next.
Click to expand...
Same old trash arguments from you are even less convincing.

Nadal, the clay GOAT, was not in Novak's path - FACT

Federer was old - FACT

Wawrinka, who was beating Novak in majors was out of his path - FACT

Nothing of what I said is an excuse.

You mentioning weak era 24/7 when things favor Federer, now that is the lamest excuse on Earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann
mike danny said:
Same old trash arguments from you are even less convincing.

Nadal, the clay GOAT, was not in Novak's path - FACT

Federer was old - FACT

Wawrinka, who was beating Novak in majors was out of his path - FACT

Nothing of what I said is an excuse.

You mentioning weak era 24/7 when things favor Federer, now that is the lamest excuse on Earth.
Click to expand...
Fed is old and should retire. FACT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mike Sams
If Djokovic wins Roland Garros 2012, will it be the strongest top 3 in history?
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Deleted member 77403
D
UnforcedTerror
  • Poll Poll
I hope for Alcaraz to break the oldest remaining major record of 7 US Open titles!
Replies
15
Views
780
hoodjem
hoodjem
Cortana
The more FO title he wins, the less will he be a GOAT-contender
Replies
33
Views
988
Rabin
Rabin
hpaiste
What Rafael Nadal has to do to become the GOAT
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
piece
P
Spencer Gore
The Big 3 Slams updated jan 2022
Replies
28
Views
732
Lleytonstation
Lleytonstation
Back
Top