Stats the big 3 need to become the goat

Status
Not open for further replies.
mike danny said:
That's just your wishful thinking because if he adds even 1 more slam, Novak's job becomes harder. :cool:

It can't be a fact since he is still no.3.
Click to expand...
He's only old when he loses. Old is just a ****ing excuse to justify all his flaws and failures.
 
mike danny said:
No, old is a fact. Of course Novak doesn't look old since his young competition is non-existent.
Click to expand...
Fed has been old since he was 28, according to you guys. Djokodal fans, on the other hand, have the dignity to never use age as an excuse when they (after turning 28) lost to younger players. Enough said really.
 
CYGS said:
Fed has been old since he was 28, according to you guys. Djokodal fans, on the other hand, have the dignity to never use age as an excuse when they (after turning 28) lost to younger players. Enough said really.
Click to expand...
What younger players? Of course they haven't used that excuse since their main competition has also consisted of old guys.
 
CYGS said:
As opposed to you guys, bringing up the age excuse every time Fed loses to a younger player.
Click to expand...
Like I said, they have NO younger player.

Nobody would say Fed is old if his competition in his early 30's consisted of guys like Thiem, Coric and Zverev.
 
mike danny said:
Like I said, they have NO younger player.

Nobody would say Fed is old if his competition in his early 30's consisted of guys like Thiem, Coric and Zverev.
Click to expand...
You overestimate your own camp. Federer being old is literally the answer to every doubt there is to Fed's legacy.
 
CYGS said:
You overestimate your own camp. Federer being old is literally the answer to every doubt there is to Fed's legacy.
Click to expand...
Dismissing age is not exactly a more honorable approach either. You guys just do it to prove how Fed is a weak era mug and to prop up Djokovic. That's all.
 
mike danny said:
Dismissing age is not exactly a more honorable approach either. You guys just do it to prove how Fed is a weak era mug and to prop up Djokovic. That's all.
Click to expand...
If you can't see the irony in your statement, then I'm not sure what's more I can add.
 
CYGS said:
If you can't see the irony in your statement, then I'm not sure what's more I can add.
Click to expand...
You guys just want us to dismiss age because otherwise Djokovic's competition doesn't look as strong anymore. You just want your cake and to eat it too: Djokovic didn't just beat Federer, he beat the best Federer.
 
My thoughts on this are fluid, Djokovic and Nadal could reach Federer's level and/or surpass it but I don't have a set criteria for them to reach.

TBH Nadal's career is so skewed towards one major that I'm not sure at what point I'd consider him a greater player than Federer. Note: He still does have an ATG career outside of the FO but I would find it hard to rate him above Federer considering Federer's record on 2/3 surfaces is far far and away better than Nadal's. Having said that a couple more wins at the AO, Wim and USO may sway me - combined not individually.

Djokovic is a little different as if he makes it close to 20 he'll probably do so with strong arguments as the HC GOAT and an argument as better on clay as well. He'll also be at least competing with Federer for #1 records and indoor pedigree as well. But I don't have a number in mind.

Masters titles don't matter much to me, Djokovic has had the luxury of competing with byes in the first rounds and no BO5, so it's been easier for him to hoover them up.
 
itrium84 said:
Oh, I get it now. 20 is not 20, 21 is not more than 20 etc, because weak era. Alternative mathematics always fascinated me.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

By your logic, then Djokovic's WTF2012 (beating Tsonga, Murray, Berdych, Delpo, Federer) is no more significant than Dimitrov's WTF2017 (beating Thiem, Goffin, Busta, Sock, Goffin).

They each count as a WTF win, but equal in significance?
well...
We'll have to agree to disagree. ;)
 
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...

I'm surprised so many have a hard time understanding your point. After Fed won AO17, Jack Nicklaus congratulated Fed and reinforced on how difficult it was to get the #18 for him as well (took Jack ~6yrs to Fed's 4.5yrs). I perfectly get where you're coming from. Serena is having that issue right now with #24.

Fed just happens to place the marker at a nice an even #20. Nobody has even been on the 'cusp' of #20 to even attempt, yet some are suggesting to discount and entertaining the idea that #18 or #19 is enough to eclipse #20 with assists from other stats? Please. If Fed retired with 13 slams but held all of his other current records, many will still argue that Sampras is greater.

So again, agreed, #19 is 1 from #20, but it's a world of difference.
 
oldmanfan said:
I'm surprised so many have a hard time understanding your point. After Fed won AO17, Jack Nicklaus congratulated Fed and reinforced on how difficult it was to get the #18 for him as well (took Jack ~6yrs to Fed's 4.5yrs). I perfectly get where you're coming from. Serena is having that issue right now with #24.

Fed just happens to place the marker at a nice an even #20. Nobody has even been on the 'cusp' of #20 to even attempt, yet some are suggesting to discount and entertaining the idea that #18 or #19 is enough to eclipse #20 with assists from other stats? Please. If Fed retired with 13 slams but held all of his other current records, many will still argue that Sampras is greater.

So again, agreed, #19 is 1 from #20, but it's a world of difference.
Click to expand...
Thank you, finally someone understands where I'm coming from.

Even in real life, some numbers aren't just seen as ordinary numbers. 21 is 1 unit higher than 20, but that number has significance because according to the law that's when somebody officially becomes an adult.

Same thing with turning 20 or turning 30. You simply change the prefix of your age, which is seen as a big reason to celebrate.

Or entering the new millennium. I'm sure entering the year 2000 was seen as a pretty big deal since it signaled the new millennium, even if it was just 1 unit higher than 1999.
 
TripleATeam said:
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.
Click to expand...

:D

All that typing, yet..

Once Fed found his game, Fed beat ATG Agassi in their last 8 matches, effectively retiring Agassi. You DO realize that younger ATGs are 'supposed' to beat older ATGs right? esp if the ATGs are 5+yrs younger? and not the other way around? You're proud that Djokovic lost 6 finals to older players, yet disparage the fact that Fed lost none?
Okay...

The fact that nobody even 3yrs+ younger (let alone 5yrs+) are beating Djokodal in slam finals speaks volumes about how bad 2 generations below them are.
 
TripleATeam said:
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.
Click to expand...
Djokovic's generation and the generation after both made it easy for Djokovic in 2014-2016.

Federer's generation may not have been incredibly powerful, but he didn't get the same fortune with the next generation. Djokovic is now getting incredible fortune from the 2 generations after his own, not just 1.

That is if you wanna go down that road, which I prefer not to.
 
Fed - to beat Nadal at RG ; positive record with Djokovic ; Double slam ; 6 YEC(Pete)

Nad - WTF ; Double slam ; defend atleast 1 title outside damn clay ; more weeks at No.1 than No.2 ; 6 YEC(Pete)

Djokovic - surpass Nadal ; Double Slam ; more overall titles than Rafa ; 6 YEC(Pete)

I'll day Djokovic has biggest chances to become GOAT in next 2-3 years
 
lud said:
Fed - to beat Nadal at RG ; positive record with Djokovic ; Double slam ; 6 YEC(Pete)

Nad - WTF ; Double slam ; defend atleast 1 title outside damn clay ; more weeks at No.1 than No.2 ; 6 YEC(Pete)

Djokovic - surpass Nadal ; Double Slam ; more overall titles than Rafa ; 6 YEC(Pete)

I'll day Djokovic has biggest chances to become GOAT in next 2-3 years
Click to expand...
The bolded is totally unnecessary, as age is not on Fed's side for that to happen. And it's not like it's a hole in Fed's resume. Djokovic, the younger opponent, is expected to have a leading H2H against Federer.

Only chance for Fed was 2017-early 2018, but Djoker didn't show up due to his own issues.
 
lud said:
Fed - to beat Nadal at RG ; positive record with Djokovic ; Double slam ; 6 YEC(Pete)

Nad - WTF ; Double slam ; defend atleast 1 title outside damn clay ; more weeks at No.1 than No.2 ; 6 YEC(Pete)

Djokovic - surpass Nadal ; Double Slam ; more overall titles than Rafa ; 6 YEC(Pete)

I'll day Djokovic has biggest chances to become GOAT in next 2-3 years
Click to expand...
Double slam is made up horse ****
 
lud said:
Fed - to beat Nadal at RG ; positive record with Djokovic ; Double slam ; 6 YEC(Pete)

Nad - WTF ; Double slam ; defend atleast 1 title outside damn clay ; more weeks at No.1 than No.2 ; 6 YEC(Pete)

Djokovic - surpass Nadal ; Double Slam ; more overall titles than Rafa ; 6 YEC(Pete)

I'll day Djokovic has biggest chances to become GOAT in next 2-3 years
Click to expand...
Oh and Fed doesn't need to become the GOAT, as he already is ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann
Only the first four stats have relevance.
And 3 of them(Weeks at #1, YE 1 and WTF titles) usually come into play when the Slam difference is 1.
If a player has at least 2 Slams over another one, Slam count prevails in a comparison IMO.
But I guess those are the most important 7 if you look that deep...
 
CYGS said:
dcgs is part of slam distribution
Click to expand...
Look I know what this is about. It's about the FO for Djokovic and the AO for Nadal. Either one might actually have a chance of doing it unlike Federer who can't win a FO at his age. Nadal fans created this bs acheivement to have a leg to stand on because Nadal has mostly been a one trick pony. Now Djokovic fans see an opening and want to talk about it now LOL. Shameless.
 
True Fanerer said:
Look I know what this is about. It's about the FO for Djokovic and the AO for Nadal. Either one might actually have a chance of doing it unlike Federer who can't win a FO at his age. Nadal fans created this bs acheivement to have a leg to stand on because Nadal has mostly been a one trick pony. Now Djokovic fans see an opening and want to talk about it now LOL. Shameless.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that it's not important because Fed can't have it? At least you're honest.
 
itrium84 said:
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
Click to expand...
Thank you for changing your original post to make it less insulting and argumentative and then reporting my response. You're swell.
 
oldmanfan said:
:D

All that typing, yet..

Once Fed found his game, Fed beat ATG Agassi in their last 8 matches, effectively retiring Agassi. You DO realize that younger ATGs are 'supposed' to beat older ATGs right? esp if the ATGs are 5+yrs younger? and not the other way around? You're proud that Djokovic lost 6 finals to older players, yet disparage the fact that Fed lost none?
Okay...

The fact that nobody even 3yrs+ younger (let alone 5yrs+) are beating Djokodal in slam finals speaks volumes about how bad 2 generations below them are.
Click to expand...
I'm not proud of it, what I am saying is that Federer had no rivals in his own generation. He was able to defeat Agassi once Agassi turned 33. He was 22 and Agassi was 33.

Federer beat the generation above him that aged out of the sport. He started winning late, when the older generation was well into their 30s, then dominated his own generation.

Djokodal didn't have the same luxury. They came into the game with an ATG in his prime. Nadal came along in 2005, when Federer was 24, and Djokovic in 2007, when Federer was 26. They were born too close to the last generation to push Fed out of the game immediately. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal, whereas Agassi was 11 years older than him. Instead, Federer and Djokodal developed rivalries that kept Federer in the game.

Seeing as Federer only started to beat Agassi after Agassi turned 33 and Federer turned 22, imagine if Agassi was there at say 25. Federer would have had a much harder time breaking through, particularly as Agassi was competitive into his 30s. Certainly Federer would have plenty of slams, but not nearly as many as he picked up for free.

Federer's generation was unable to stop Federer during his prime years, yielding nothing but slams for him. Finally, Djokodal showed up to stop the bleeding. Subsequently, slams were split between the 3, as Federer had not aged out of the winner's circle until 2010, with an exception in 2012 and a resurgence in 2017.

What i'm trying to say is that if Djokovic and Nadal haven't had a proper competitor from the younger generation, it could be because they're so dominant (Roger too) that the younger generation is suppressed. Roger did it to his own generation, so what's to stop Djokodal from doing it to anyone younger?
 
TripleATeam said:
I'm not proud of it, what I am saying is that Federer had no rivals in his own generation. He was able to defeat Agassi once Agassi turned 33. He was 22 and Agassi was 33.

Federer beat the generation above him that aged out of the sport. He started winning late, when the older generation was well into their 30s, then dominated his own generation.

Djokodal didn't have the same luxury. They came into the game with an ATG in his prime. Nadal came along in 2005, when Federer was 24, and Djokovic in 2007, when Federer was 26. They were born too close to the last generation to push Fed out of the game immediately. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal, whereas Agassi was 11 years older than him. Instead, Federer and Djokodal developed rivalries that kept Federer in the game.

Seeing as Federer only started to beat Agassi after Agassi turned 33 and Federer turned 22, imagine if Agassi was there at say 25. Federer would have had a much harder time breaking through, particularly as Agassi was competitive into his 30s. Certainly Federer would have plenty of slams, but not nearly as many as he picked up for free.

Federer's generation was unable to stop Federer during his prime years, yielding nothing but slams for him. Finally, Djokodal showed up to stop the bleeding. Subsequently, slams were split between the 3, as Federer had not aged out of the winner's circle until 2010, with an exception in 2012 and a resurgence in 2017.

What i'm trying to say is that if Djokovic and Nadal haven't had a proper competitor from the younger generation, it could be because they're so dominant (Roger too) that the younger generation is suppressed. Roger did it to his own generation, so what's to stop Djokodal from doing it to anyone younger?
Click to expand...

Much better poast. ;)

Don't defend the 2 gens after Djokodal though. They are just bad. Facts. They weren't beaten by Djokodal all the time. Where were they when Nadal wasn't much of a factor in 2014 to end of [edit:2016], and where were they when Djokovic wasn't much of a factor from RG2016 to WB2018? They couldn't reach finals when 1/2 of the draw was free of Djokodal.

The ones that managed it was Cilic at USO2014 (but he's only about 2yrs younger, so about same gen as Murray) and Thiem in this year's RG18. So really just Thiem. That's 1 in about 20 slams where one of Djokodal were 'absent' form-wise. Pretty scarce when 1/2 the draw was open for them, let alone doing it in other years where they DO have to challange both of Djokodal.

Let's all hope at least one ATG shows up in the next 2-3 years or tennis is going to take a big hit.
 
Last edited:
TripleATeam said:
I'm not proud of it, what I am saying is that Federer had no rivals in his own generation. He was able to defeat Agassi once Agassi turned 33. He was 22 and Agassi was 33.

Federer beat the generation above him that aged out of the sport. He started winning late, when the older generation was well into their 30s, then dominated his own generation.

Djokodal didn't have the same luxury. They came into the game with an ATG in his prime. Nadal came along in 2005, when Federer was 24, and Djokovic in 2007, when Federer was 26. They were born too close to the last generation to push Fed out of the game immediately. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal, whereas Agassi was 11 years older than him. Instead, Federer and Djokodal developed rivalries that kept Federer in the game.

Seeing as Federer only started to beat Agassi after Agassi turned 33 and Federer turned 22, imagine if Agassi was there at say 25. Federer would have had a much harder time breaking through, particularly as Agassi was competitive into his 30s. Certainly Federer would have plenty of slams, but not nearly as many as he picked up for free.

Federer's generation was unable to stop Federer during his prime years, yielding nothing but slams for him. Finally, Djokodal showed up to stop the bleeding. Subsequently, slams were split between the 3, as Federer had not aged out of the winner's circle until 2010, with an exception in 2012 and a resurgence in 2017.

What i'm trying to say is that if Djokovic and Nadal haven't had a proper competitor from the younger generation, it could be because they're so dominant (Roger too) that the younger generation is suppressed. Roger did it to his own generation, so what's to stop Djokodal from doing it to anyone younger?
Click to expand...

Agassi only had 4 years inside the top 4 in the 90's. Doubt he would ever have been a consistent roadblock to Federer - he was a three time champ until 1999 when he decided to fully focus on the sport, his career trajectory was quite different to Federer's.
 
GabeT said:
Here’s what Nole needs to dethrone Fed’;

2 more WTF
2 more YE1
About 90 more weeks at #1
1 more AO
1 more FO

With that Nole will be ahead of Fed everywhere except Wimbledon, the USO, Cincy, and Madrid. It won’t make Nole automatically GOAT. But it will change the debate. today there is broad agreement that Fed is the GOAT. But if that advantage is limited to two slams and two masters then the broad agreement disappears. Watch and see.
Click to expand...
16 slams is not changing anyone’s mind.
 
GabeT said:
Here’s what Nole needs to dethrone Fed’;

2 more WTF
2 more YE1
About 90 more weeks at #1
1 more AO
1 more FO

With that Nole will be ahead of Fed everywhere except Wimbledon, the USO, Cincy, and Madrid. It won’t make Nole automatically GOAT. But it will change the debate. today there is broad agreement that Fed is the GOAT. But if that advantage is limited to two slams and two masters then the broad agreement disappears. Watch and see.
Click to expand...
With what you said, even I would say Fed is GOAT. Nole needs more slams. At least 18. Plus, I don't see 90 weeks at #1 happening with just two more slams unless he's really lucky.

In addition to what you said, Novak needs probably 19 slams to be in true contention - 1 AO, 1 FO, 1 Wim, 2 USO.

Ties Fed at USO, beats at AO, 3rd only to him and Sampras at Wimbledon. Best surface distribution.
 
TripleATeam said:
With what you said, even I would say Fed is GOAT. Nole needs more slams. At least 18. Plus, I don't see 90 weeks at #1 happening with just two more slams unless he's really lucky.

In addition to what you said, Novak needs probably 19 slams to be in true contention - 1 AO, 1 FO, 1 Wim, 2 USO.

Ties Fed at USO, beats at AO, 3rd only to him and Sampras at Wimbledon. Best surface distribution.
Click to expand...
But I’m focusing on the intermediate step. Today almost all agree that Fed has the greatest resume. What would it take for at least some key commentators and tennis experts to say, “wait a minute, Nole has a legitimate claim here”? My sense is that if Nole reduces Fed’s advantage to just Wimbledon and the USO many will say just that.

Now, to be considered universally the clear GOAT will require more than that. But I wasn’t focusing on that final step. Just the intermediate where experts start thinking they are roughly the same.
 
GabeT said:
But I’m focusing on the intermediate step. Today almost all agree that Fed has the greatest resume. What would it take for at least some key commentators and tennis experts to say, “wait a minute, Nole has a legitimate claim here”? My sense is that if Nole reduces Fed’s advantage to just Wimbledon and the USO many will say just that.

Now, to be considered universally the clear GOAT will require more than that. But I wasn’t focusing on that final step. Just the intermediate where experts start thinking they are roughly the same.
Click to expand...
I know. For me, they cannot be regarded as the same or similar enough to debate until Novak reaches 18.
 
TripleATeam said:
I know. For me, they cannot be regarded as the same or similar enough to debate until Novak reaches 18.
Click to expand...
We are on the same page on this one.
18 - valid arguments for goat debate and real comparations
19 - valid case for goat Novak
20 - very hard case for goat Fed
21 - no case for goat Fed

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
oldmanfan said:
Much better poast. ;)

Don't defend the 2 gens after Djokodal though. They are just bad. Facts. They weren't beaten by Djokodal all the time. Where were they when Nadal wasn't much of a factor in 2014 to end of 2017, and where were they when Djokovic wasn't much of a factor from RG2016 to WB2018? They couldn't reach finals when 1/2 of the draw was free of Djokodal.

The ones that managed it was Cilic at USO2014 (but he's only about 2yrs younger, so about same gen as Murray) and Thiem in this year's RG18. So really just Thiem. That's 1 in about 20 slams where one of Djokodal were 'absent' form-wise. Pretty scarce when 1/2 the draw was open for them, let alone doing it in other years where they DO have to challange both of Djokodal.

Let's all hope at least one ATG shows up in the next 2-3 years or tennis is going to take a big hit.
Click to expand...
True enough. The next generations aren't great, but I think we see them as even worse than they are because of the Big 3. Also, why are you referring to Cilic as part of Murray's generation when Djokovic is younger than Murray by a week? Just a question.
 
TripleATeam said:
I'm not proud of it, what I am saying is that Federer had no rivals in his own generation. He was able to defeat Agassi once Agassi turned 33. He was 22 and Agassi was 33.

Federer beat the generation above him that aged out of the sport. He started winning late, when the older generation was well into their 30s, then dominated his own generation.

Djokodal didn't have the same luxury. They came into the game with an ATG in his prime. Nadal came along in 2005, when Federer was 24, and Djokovic in 2007, when Federer was 26. They were born too close to the last generation to push Fed out of the game immediately. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal, whereas Agassi was 11 years older than him. Instead, Federer and Djokodal developed rivalries that kept Federer in the game.

Seeing as Federer only started to beat Agassi after Agassi turned 33 and Federer turned 22, imagine if Agassi was there at say 25. Federer would have had a much harder time breaking through, particularly as Agassi was competitive into his 30s. Certainly Federer would have plenty of slams, but not nearly as many as he picked up for free.

Federer's generation was unable to stop Federer during his prime years, yielding nothing but slams for him. Finally, Djokodal showed up to stop the bleeding. Subsequently, slams were split between the 3, as Federer had not aged out of the winner's circle until 2010, with an exception in 2012 and a resurgence in 2017.

What i'm trying to say is that if Djokovic and Nadal haven't had a proper competitor from the younger generation, it could be because they're so dominant (Roger too) that the younger generation is suppressed. Roger did it to his own generation, so what's to stop Djokodal from doing it to anyone younger?
Click to expand...
Because no great young players have risen. It's easy for Djokodal to shut them down since they suck. The younger players after Djokodal are worse than Fed's generation so far.

Federer at least was in his prime when he was dominating his own generation. But they were at least providing some challenge for prime Fed. Nadal and Djokovic are old men and the young ones aren't even scratching them. Ridiculous.

Give Nadal and Djokovic actual competition from the young players like Federer had and they wouldn't look so good anymore.

Compare what Federer had in 2012 from the younger players with what Djokodal have today. Day and night difference.
 
mike danny said:
Because no great young players have risen. It's easy for Djokodal to shut them down since they suck. The younger players after Djokodal are worse than Fed's generation so far.

Federer at least was in his prime when he was dominating his own generation. But they were at least providing some challenge for prime Fed. Nadal and Djokovic are old men and the young ones aren't even scratching them. Ridiculous.

Give Nadal and Djokovic actual competition from the young players like Federer had and they wouldn't look so good anymore.

Compare what Federer had in 2012 from the younger players with what Djokodal have today. Day and night difference.
Click to expand...

As often on your posts, my head spins from the sheer circularity of your reasoning. First of all, you should probably lose the "Djokodal"; they don't team up to try to beat anyone. Tacky nickname, even if they were a doubles team or an off-court couple. It also serves to trivialize them as individual greats.

Secondly, ...what Fed had in 2012?! Djokovic was #1 in '11 and 12, and he had Fed and Nadal, as Fed has Nadal and Djokovic, and.... I really don't know what lines you're drawing to try to prop up an All-Time-Great who doesn't need such "help". Fed is unbelievable, and I like and appreciate him, but the sjheer volume of the Fed-centric posts are stunning to me.

What Fed mostly has going for him in all these GOAT discussions - besides his ridiculous talent, drive, passion for the game, etc. - is remarkable longevity and being born 5 years before Rafa and 6 before Novak. Of course, he's accomplished more. He may end up by the time they all retire with more accomplishments as well, but to try to downplay what either Rafa and Novak have done and may do in the future - because of so-called weak competition that is premature to judge now - is disingenuous at best.
 
Plot twist - they are all co-GOATS. One specialised in grass, one in hard and one on clay. They will all retire with 20 slams and all finish 5 times as the YE # 1. Fed with more weeks at # 1, Djoker with more WTF titles and Rafa with more masters 100 titles.
 
TripleATeam said:
True enough. The next generations aren't great, but I think we see them as even worse than they are because of the Big 3. Also, why are you referring to Cilic as part of Murray's generation when Djokovic is younger than Murray by a week? Just a question.
Click to expand...

Really? lul
Somehow I thought Mury is a few months younger than Djoker.

Good to know, thx!
 
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
779
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