The big 3 are all GOAT and BOAT

[FiReFTW]

There are many statistics and trophies and whatever that someone uses to determine who is best, from grand slams, to titles to h2h to weeks at nr1

But the big 3 are all very close in many of these categories, and many of these categories is a very bad determining factor of how good someone is.

Head to head between 2 players is a very bad determining factor of how good someone is as a tennis player.

There are many factors why.

For example:

1.How good someone is on a particular day (rarely if ever are you 100%, many times you are 90% or 95% or 98% or 92% or 87%.. this can mean the difference between winning and losing)

2.Are you 100% healthy? sick? have a small injury that affect you on that day? It can also mean the difference between winning and losing.

3.Luck... yes luck.. the margins in tennis are so small, think USO 2011 SF, if Djokovic misses that lucky ball bashing return he losses, but now he goes on to win.. sometimes such plays or even worse some netcords or even more lucky shots can mean the difference between winning and losing

4.How good you are in general that particular year and how many times do you play your opponent? There are ups and downs, peaks that players have, then bad years.. imagine you are a peak 2011 Djokovic, or a peak 2006 Fed, or a peak 2008 Nadal, and you play your rivals 10 times that year... and then you are in bad shape 2016 Djokovic, or 2013 Fed, or 2015 Nadal and you play your rivals 3 times that year... now reverse it and say you play them 3 times at your peak and 10 times when ur not.. the difference the h2h would be in these two different scenarios is HUGE.

5.Playstyle, someone just doesn't suit ur playstyle at all, a good example of this is Nadal playing defensive tennis and running down balls and giving Federer trouble on his backhand high loopy shots in his early days, and now again nowadays its reversed and Nadal playing more aggressive tennis suits Federer much better and now he has the advantage.

6.How many times did you play your rivals on your favorite surface and vice versa?

Dubai is one of Rogers best surfaces, so is cincinnati, he is 3:1 in each of those against Djokovic.

Meanwhile Rome and Indian Wells suit Djokovic much better, he is 3:0 and 3:0 there...

One of the more loopsided statistics that prove exactly this point is Nadal.

Nadal has quite a big h2h advantage vs Federer and Djokovic, however if you look at it closely, look how many times they played on Nadals favorite GS surface and how many times on the other 3.


Nadal Djokovic

AO 1
WIM 3
USO 3
FO 7

Nadal Federer

AO 4
WIM 3
USO 0
FO 5


Djokovic dominates Nadal 18-7 h2h on hard courts and is a much better hard court player.

AO is also Djokovic's favorite surface and he has dominated there like nowhere else, and yet only meet Nadal there one single time because Nadal was not good enough to play him and lost against weaker opponents.

Djokovic is also great at the USO, but again he got completely exhausted from his insane SF matches against Fed many times, while Nadal always had easy draws when he managed to reach the final there, fresh as a daisy.

Djokovic is also a great grass court player, his serve is great and he is very natural on grass, meanwhile Nadal has been quite bad on grass for a long time now, but unluckly for Djokovic he did not meet Nadal when he was in his grass peak at 14-15.

Its safe to say h2h would be more like this if they played equally (7 times) everywhere:

AO 5:2 Djokovic
WIM 4:3 Djokovic
USO 4:3 Djokovic
FO 6:1 Nadal

Much much more closer than the h2h might look.



Its no secret for everyone that Fed at peak 04-07 was 7:2 against Rafa on HC and Grass, and he was also sick and not 100% at miami so should have been more like 8:1, he basically dominated Nadal everywhere but Clay.

USO was also Fed's favorite HC slam during that time, from 2004-2011 he won 5 times, was in F once and choked the win away, and twice lost in SF where he had match points in both.

Nadal was also getting outplayed at AO 09 but Fed had an injured back and choked the match away in the 5th set, so if they also met once more there during those times and healthy he would have won for sure.

Its safe to say the h2h would be more like this if they played equally (5 times) everywhere:

AO 3:2 Nadal
WIM 4:1 Federer
USO 4:1 Federer
FO 5:0 Nadal

Again, much much closer than the h2h might look.


Final conclusion

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all 3 great players, but all very different players.

Yes their matches when both players were at their best are all so close you could barely determine who wins, only a point or two here and there could change everything.

And there are so many factors and variables that basically its extremely hard to say one player is better than another player.

On their best day anyone can beat the other, they just all have advantages on different surfaces.

On fast courts Federer has the edge, on medium its Djokovic and on slow clay its Nadal.

 

[tennis_pro]

But mostly Federer.

 

[Sport]

.

 

[Standaa]

..cause there is only one GOAT and it’s Federer

 

[Steve0904]

You've written so much, yet said so little.

Which reads as I'm lazy, give me the TLDR version.

 

[tennis_pro]

 

[Plamen1234]

No such thing as 3 GOATs.There is only one and imo it is Roger Federer.

 

[Hamnavoe]

Mury GOAT

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

 

[Deleted member 756486]

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

There are many statistics and trophies and whatever that someone uses to determine who is best, from grand slams, to titles to h2h to weeks at nr1

But the big 3 are all very close in many of these categories, and many of these categories is a very bad determining factor of how good someone is.

Head to head between 2 players is a very bad determining factor of how good someone is as a tennis player.

There are many factors why.

For example:

1.How good someone is on a particular day (rarely if ever are you 100%, many times you are 90% or 95% or 98% or 92% or 87%.. this can mean the difference between winning and losing)

2.Are you 100% healthy? sick? have a small injury that affect you on that day? It can also mean the difference between winning and losing.

3.Luck... yes luck.. the margins in tennis are so small, think USO 2011 SF, if Djokovic misses that lucky ball bashing return he losses, but now he goes on to win.. sometimes such plays or even worse some netcords or even more lucky shots can mean the difference between winning and losing

4.How good you are in general that particular year and how many times do you play your opponent? There are ups and downs, peaks that players have, then bad years.. imagine you are a peak 2011 Djokovic, or a peak 2006 Fed, or a peak 2008 Nadal, and you play your rivals 10 times that year... and then you are in bad shape 2016 Djokovic, or 2013 Fed, or 2015 Nadal and you play your rivals 3 times that year... now reverse it and say you play them 3 times at your peak and 10 times when ur not.. the difference the h2h would be in these two different scenarios is HUGE.

5.Playstyle, someone just doesn't suit ur playstyle at all, a good example of this is Nadal playing defensive tennis and running down balls and giving Federer trouble on his backhand high loopy shots in his early days, and now again nowadays its reversed and Nadal playing more aggressive tennis suits Federer much better and now he has the advantage.

6.How many times did you play your rivals on your favorite surface and vice versa?

Dubai is one of Rogers best surfaces, so is cincinnati, he is 3:1 in each of those against Djokovic.

Meanwhile Rome and Indian Wells suit Djokovic much better, he is 3:0 and 3:0 there...

One of the more loopsided statistics that prove exactly this point is Nadal.

Nadal has quite a big h2h advantage vs Federer and Djokovic, however if you look at it closely, look how many times they played on Nadals favorite GS surface and how many times on the other 3.


Nadal Djokovic

AO 1
WIM 3
USO 3
FO 7

Nadal Federer

AO 4
WIM 3
USO 0
FO 5


Djokovic dominates Nadal 18-7 h2h on hard courts and is a much better hard court player.

AO is also Djokovic's favorite surface and he has dominated there like nowhere else, and yet only meet Nadal there one single time because Nadal was not good enough to play him and lost against weaker opponents.

Djokovic is also great at the USO, but again he got completely exhausted from his insane SF matches against Fed many times, while Nadal always had easy draws when he managed to reach the final there, fresh as a daisy.

Djokovic is also a great grass court player, his serve is great and he is very natural on grass, meanwhile Nadal has been quite bad on grass for a long time now, but unluckly for Djokovic he did not meet Nadal when he was in his grass peak at 14-15.

Its safe to say h2h would be more like this if they played equally (7 times) everywhere:

AO 5:2 Djokovic
WIM 4:3 Djokovic
USO 4:3 Djokovic
FO 6:1 Nadal

Much much more closer than the h2h might look.



Its no secret for everyone that Fed at peak 04-07 was 7:2 against Rafa on HC and Grass, and he was also sick and not 100% at miami so should have been more like 8:1, he basically dominated Nadal everywhere but Clay.

USO was also Fed's favorite HC slam during that time, from 2004-2011 he won 5 times, was in F once and choked the win away, and twice lost in SF where he had match points in both.

Nadal was also getting outplayed at AO 09 but Fed had an injured back and choked the match away in the 5th set, so if they also met once more there during those times and healthy he would have won for sure.

Its safe to say the h2h would be more like this if they played equally (5 times) everywhere:

AO 3:2 Nadal
WIM 4:1 Federer
USO 4:1 Federer
FO 5:0 Nadal

Again, much much closer than the h2h might look.


Final conclusion

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all 3 great players, but all very different players.

Yes their matches when both players were at their best are all so close you could barely determine who wins, only a point or two here and there could change everything.

And there are so many factors and variables that basically its extremely hard to say one player is better than another player.

On their best day anyone can beat the other, they just all have advantages on different surfaces.

On fast courts Federer has the edge, on medium its Djokovic and on slow clay its Nadal.

Real goat is mury goat
All big 3 sux

 

[Sport]

Its no secret for everyone that Fed at peak 04-07 was 7:2 against Rafa on HC and Grass. Its no secret for everyone that Fed at peak 04-07 was 7:2 against Rafa on HC and Grass, and he was also sick and not 100% at miami so should have been more like 8:1, he basically dominated Nadal everywhere but Clay.

In fact, the opposite seems to be true, Nadal dominates Federer 9-3 in Grand Slams (including 4-3 outside clay). That is, Nadal has won 75% of his Grand Slam matches against Federer. That is brutal domination.

Contrary to what Federer fans like to say, Federer was at his peak in 2008 (26-year-old) and 2009 (27-year-old) when he faced Nadal. Why do Federer fans have created the myth that Federer's peak finished in 2007? To justify his losses against Nadal. According to the Federer fans mythology, just from the moment that Nadal started to win Federer at Grand Slams outside clay, Federer magically transformed into a non-peak player. No one believes so. Federer just had more competence than Roddick, Baghdatis or Philippoussis and subsequently lost against Nadal. In 2008 and 2009 Roger was only 26 and 27 when he faced Nadal, thus he was at his peak. Nadal and Djokovic, who have a much more physical game than Federer, were also at their peak when aged 27 (Nadal in 2013, Djokovic in 2014).


There is a universal rule in life: when Nadal defeats peak Federer, Federer fans put an excuse.


1. Nadal defeats Federer in Miami 2004. There will be an excuse.

2. Nadal defeats Federer at Wimbledon 2008. There will be an excuse.

3. Nadal defeats Federer at the Australian Open 2009.There will be an excuse.


You do not believe me? Read the following lines.


1. Nadal defeats Federer in Miami 2004.

17-year-old Rafa beat peak 22-year-old Federer in Miami. Some Federer fans have claimed that Rafa was injured in Miami 2004. What is their "evidence"? He skipped Montecarlo. But it does not represent any evidence that he was injured. Federer was not at his best on clay back in 2004, and maybe he decided to not even try Montecarlo to take some rest. Federer had skipped Montecarlo the previous year in 2003, and no one ever mentioned any injury for his 2003 decission to skip Montecarlo.


Crucially, Federer had won the Indian Wells final just one week before facing Rafa in Miami. So Federer was healthy in Indian Wells and suddenly became non-healthy one week later in Miami? Sounds like an excuse.


The periodicals of the time did not report any injury of Federer at that match:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/mar/30/tennis


2. Nadal defeats Federer at Wimbledon 2008.

The only exception for Federer is AO 2008 due to the mononucleosis issue, but according to this New York Times' article doctors said Federer was recovered from the adverse effects of mononucleosis as soon as late February. He received medical clearance to play normally the 27th of February 2008. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/sports/07iht-arena.3.10811374.html?pagewanted=all

Federer arrived to the Wimbledon final in July (more than 4 months after the medical clearance). Federer was moving perfectly in Wimbledon 2008, and he arrived to the final without losing any set. He was 26 and didn't look less fast than in 2007. So he was at his peak. Even the 2007 final was kinda close, Nadal had 4 break points in the 5th set. 26 years old Roger was 100% healthy and at his peak in the 2008 Wimbledon final.


3. Nadal defeats Federer at the Australian Open 2009.

The fact that Federer had some physical issues (back problem) is not a valid excuse for the AO 2009 final loss, especially when Nadal also had some physical issues (overstress of the right knee).

Federer skipped a Davis Cup match for the 17th of February of 2009, 16 days after the AO final. He didn’t say he was injured in Australia, he said he skipped the Davis Cup to prevent future issues with his back (he injured the back in the 2008 Masters Cup).

“After injuring my back last fall” Federer said in a statement posted on his Web site. “As a precautionary measure, I will use the next few weeks to make sure the back injury is fully rehabilitated.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/sports/tennis/18tennis.html

Paradoxically, Nadal also skipped Dubai, which started the 19th of February of 2009 after a sustained injury in the right knee which was especially noticeable in Rotterdam, just one week after the Australian Open. Nadal also played with a bandage in his knees in the AO 2009 final, so it is more than obvious he wasn’t 100% fit, otherwise he wouldn’t have used a bandage in the knees and then got injured one week later in the right knee at Rotterdam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/7895679.stm

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/feb/16/tennis-andy-murray-rafael-nadal

Another proof that he had overstress of the right knee before Rotterdam is that Nadal asked for a medical timeout at the AO 2009 final, and the physio was massaging his right knee (2:34):

Federer’s back problems didn’t make any difference in the AO 2009 final, since Nadal also had overstress of the knees, which was noticeable by (1) the fact that he was using a bandage in the knees, (2) the physio was massaging his right knee in a medical timeout and (3) the fact that he got injured just one week later in Rotterdam 2009 in the exactly same place, the right knee.

 

[KINGROGER]

In fact, the opposite seems to be true, Nadal dominates Federer 9-3 in Grand Slams (including 4-3 outside clay). That is, Nadal has won 75% of his Grand Slam matches against Federer. That is brutal domination.

Contrary to what Federer fans like to say, Federer was at his peak in 2008 (26-year-old) and 2009 (27-year-old) when he faced Nadal. Why do Federer fans have created the myth that Federer's peak finished in 2007? To justify his losses against Nadal. According to the Federer fans mythology, just from the moment that Nadal started to win Federer at Grand Slams outside clay, Federer magically transformed into a non-peak player. No one believes so. Federer just had more competence than Roddick, Baghdatis or Philippoussis and subsequently lost against Nadal. In 2008 and 2009 Roger was only 26 and 27 when he faced Nadal, thus he was at his peak. Nadal and Djokovic, who have a much more physical game than Federer, were also at their peak when aged 27 (Nadal in 2013, Djokovic in 2014).


There is a universal rule in life: when Nadal defeats peak Federer, Federer fans put an excuse.


1. Nadal defeats Federer in Miami 2004. There will be an excuse.

2. Nadal defeats Federer at Wimbledon 2008. There will be an excuse.

3. Nadal defeats Federer at the Australian Open 2009.There will be an excuse.


You do not believe me? Read the following lines.


1. Nadal defeats Federer in Miami 2004.

17-year-old Rafa beat peak 22-year-old Federer in Miami. Some Federer fans have claimed that Rafa was injured in Miami 2004. What is their "evidence"? He skipped Montecarlo. But it does not represent any evidence that he was injured. Federer was not at his best on clay back in 2004, and maybe he decided to not even try Montecarlo to take some rest. Federer had skipped Montecarlo the previous year in 2003, and no one ever mentioned any injury for his 2003 decission to skip Montecarlo.


Crucially, Federer had won the Indian Wells final just one week before facing Rafa in Miami. So Federer was healthy in Indian Wells and suddenly became non-healthy one week later in Miami? Sounds like an excuse.


The periodicals of the time did not report any injury of Federer at that match:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/mar/30/tennis


2. Nadal defeats Federer at Wimbledon 2008.

The only exception for Federer is AO 2008 due to the mononucleosis issue, but according to this New York Times' article doctors said Federer was recovered from the adverse effects of mononucleosis as soon as late February. He received medical clearance to play normally the 27th of February 2008. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/sports/07iht-arena.3.10811374.html?pagewanted=all

Federer arrived to the Wimbledon final in July (more than 4 months after the medical clearance). Federer was moving perfectly in Wimbledon 2008, and he arrived to the final without losing any set. He was 26 and didn't look less fast than in 2007. So he was at his peak. Even the 2007 final was kinda close, Nadal had 4 break points in the 5th set. 26 years old Roger was 100% healthy and at his peak in the 2008 Wimbledon final.


3. Nadal defeats Federer at the Australian Open 2009.

The fact that Federer had some physical issues (back problem) is not a valid excuse for the AO 2009 final loss, especially when Nadal also had some physical issues (overstress of the right knee).

Federer skipped a Davis Cup match for the 17th of February of 2009, 16 days after the AO final. He didn’t say he was injured in Australia, he said he skipped the Davis Cup to prevent future issues with his back (he injured the back in the 2008 Masters Cup).

“After injuring my back last fall” Federer said in a statement posted on his Web site. “As a precautionary measure, I will use the next few weeks to make sure the back injury is fully rehabilitated.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/sports/tennis/18tennis.html

Paradoxically, Nadal also skipped Dubai, which started the 19th of February of 2009 after a sustained injury in the right knee which was especially noticeable in Rotterdam, just one week after the Australian Open. Nadal also played with a bandage in his knees in the AO 2009 final, so it is more than obvious he wasn’t 100% fit, otherwise he wouldn’t have used a bandage in the knees and then got injured one week later in the right knee at Rotterdam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/7895679.stm

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/feb/16/tennis-andy-murray-rafael-nadal

Another proof that he had overstress of the right knee before Rotterdam is that Nadal asked for a medical timeout at the AO 2009 final, and the physio was massaging his right knee (2:34):

Federer’s back problems didn’t make any difference in the AO 2009 final, since Nadal also had overstress of the knees, which was noticeable by (1) the fact that he was using a bandage in the knees, (2) the physio was massaging his right knee in a medical timeout and (3) the fact that he got injured just one week later in Rotterdam 2009 in the exactly same place, the right knee.

How do you explain his huge dip in form in 2008 compared to earlier?

 

[Sport]

How do you explain his huge dip in form in 2008 compared to earlier?

Nadal is better than Roddick, Baghdatis, Phillipoussis, old Agassi and the likes.

 

[King No1e]

There are many statistics and trophies and whatever that someone uses to determine who is best, from grand slams, to titles to h2h to weeks at nr1

But the big 3 are all very close in many of these categories, and many of these categories is a very bad determining factor of how good someone is.

Head to head between 2 players is a very bad determining factor of how good someone is as a tennis player.

There are many factors why.

For example:

1.How good someone is on a particular day (rarely if ever are you 100%, many times you are 90% or 95% or 98% or 92% or 87%.. this can mean the difference between winning and losing)

2.Are you 100% healthy? sick? have a small injury that affect you on that day? It can also mean the difference between winning and losing.

3.Luck... yes luck.. the margins in tennis are so small, think USO 2011 SF, if Djokovic misses that lucky ball bashing return he losses, but now he goes on to win.. sometimes such plays or even worse some netcords or even more lucky shots can mean the difference between winning and losing

4.How good you are in general that particular year and how many times do you play your opponent? There are ups and downs, peaks that players have, then bad years.. imagine you are a peak 2011 Djokovic, or a peak 2006 Fed, or a peak 2008 Nadal, and you play your rivals 10 times that year... and then you are in bad shape 2016 Djokovic, or 2013 Fed, or 2015 Nadal and you play your rivals 3 times that year... now reverse it and say you play them 3 times at your peak and 10 times when ur not.. the difference the h2h would be in these two different scenarios is HUGE.

5.Playstyle, someone just doesn't suit ur playstyle at all, a good example of this is Nadal playing defensive tennis and running down balls and giving Federer trouble on his backhand high loopy shots in his early days, and now again nowadays its reversed and Nadal playing more aggressive tennis suits Federer much better and now he has the advantage.

6.How many times did you play your rivals on your favorite surface and vice versa?

Dubai is one of Rogers best surfaces, so is cincinnati, he is 3:1 in each of those against Djokovic.

Meanwhile Rome and Indian Wells suit Djokovic much better, he is 3:0 and 3:0 there...

One of the more loopsided statistics that prove exactly this point is Nadal.

Nadal has quite a big h2h advantage vs Federer and Djokovic, however if you look at it closely, look how many times they played on Nadals favorite GS surface and how many times on the other 3.


Nadal Djokovic

AO 1
WIM 3
USO 3
FO 7

Nadal Federer

AO 4
WIM 3
USO 0
FO 5


Djokovic dominates Nadal 18-7 h2h on hard courts and is a much better hard court player.

AO is also Djokovic's favorite surface and he has dominated there like nowhere else, and yet only meet Nadal there one single time because Nadal was not good enough to play him and lost against weaker opponents.

Djokovic is also great at the USO, but again he got completely exhausted from his insane SF matches against Fed many times, while Nadal always had easy draws when he managed to reach the final there, fresh as a daisy.

Djokovic is also a great grass court player, his serve is great and he is very natural on grass, meanwhile Nadal has been quite bad on grass for a long time now, but unluckly for Djokovic he did not meet Nadal when he was in his grass peak at 14-15.

Its safe to say h2h would be more like this if they played equally (7 times) everywhere:

AO 5:2 Djokovic
WIM 4:3 Djokovic
USO 4:3 Djokovic
FO 6:1 Nadal

Much much more closer than the h2h might look.



Its no secret for everyone that Fed at peak 04-07 was 7:2 against Rafa on HC and Grass, and he was also sick and not 100% at miami so should have been more like 8:1, he basically dominated Nadal everywhere but Clay.

USO was also Fed's favorite HC slam during that time, from 2004-2011 he won 5 times, was in F once and choked the win away, and twice lost in SF where he had match points in both.

Nadal was also getting outplayed at AO 09 but Fed had an injured back and choked the match away in the 5th set, so if they also met once more there during those times and healthy he would have won for sure.

Its safe to say the h2h would be more like this if they played equally (5 times) everywhere:

AO 3:2 Nadal
WIM 4:1 Federer
USO 4:1 Federer
FO 5:0 Nadal

Again, much much closer than the h2h might look.


Final conclusion

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all 3 great players, but all very different players.

Yes their matches when both players were at their best are all so close you could barely determine who wins, only a point or two here and there could change everything.

And there are so many factors and variables that basically its extremely hard to say one player is better than another player.

On their best day anyone can beat the other, they just all have advantages on different surfaces.

On fast courts Federer has the edge, on medium its Djokovic and on slow clay its Nadal.

We should consider ourselves lucky as tennis fans to witness this age of excellence.

 

[Standaa]

1. Nadal defeats Federer in Miami 2004. There will be an excuse.

2. Nadal defeats Federer at Wimbledon 2008. There will be an excuse.

3. Nadal defeats Federer at the Australian Open 2009.There will be an excuse.

NO MORE EXCUSES!

 

[King No1e]

NO MORE EXCUSES!

Nuff said!

 

[Deleted member 756486]

NO MORE EXCUSES!

I DON’T WANT TO HEAR IT

 

[toby55555]

Doesn’t matter what anyone on this forum thinks, the general public have long assumed Federer is in a league of his own.

 

[KINGROGER]

Nadal is better than Roddick, Baghdatis, Phillipoussis, old Agassi and the likes.

Ah so Nadal in 2008 who was playing the same level as 2007 made Federer play worse?

Nadal made Federer lose to Roddick, Fish, Stepanek, Blake, Karlovic, Simon?

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[RS]

Ah so Nadal in 2008 who was playing the same level as 2007 made Federer play worse?

Nadal made Federer lose to Roddick, Fish, Stepanek, Blake, Karlovic, Simon?

Mentally Federer may have even down after losing Wimb 2008. So it isn’t hard to believe. If he had won Wimbledon he may not have lost to those players. He may have lost a little belief. In 2007 Federer was exactly in the same situation.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I did read. Some interesting points.

Whatever works for you.

 

[KINGROGER]

Mentally Federer may have even down after losing Wimb 2008. So it isn’t hard to believe. If he had won Wimbledon he may not have lost to those players. He may have lost a little belief. In 2007 Federer was exactly in the same situation.

He won USO then still went on to lose to multiple lesser players.

In 2008 Federer should have been at his most confident ever. He’d finally beat Nadal on clay, and won the H2H 3-2 for the year, finishing with a demolition job at the YEC SF. 2nd triple slam winning year in a row. Aura of invincibility at W/USO.

Getting mono really screwed him up and aside from flashes he really wasn’t the same player again. 2007 itself was slightly below 04-06. He had already started losing to lesser players.

 

[RS]

He won USO then still went on to lose to multiple lesser players.
He actually had back problems in Paris and WTF though after USO. As well as mono at the beginning of the year

In 2008 Federer should have been at his most confident ever. He’d finally beat Nadal on clay, and won the H2H 3-2 for the year, finishing with a demolition job at the YEC SF. 2nd triple slam winning year in a row. Aura of invincibility at W/USO.
Losing to Nadal 3 times on clay and at Wimby was a lot. I don’t think Federer was the favoured to beat Nadal ever at RG even though many thought 2006 was his best chance. If not for this he probably goes on to win more between then and the end of the year. Federer was confident he said he thought he was ready to win Olympics he spoke about this after he got mono cleared.

Getting mono really screwed him up and aside from flashes he really wasn’t the same player again. 2007 itself was slightly below 04-06. He had already started losing to lesser players.

Federer does reckon so. I think it is a bit exaggerated. He was better on the whole in 2004-2007 than 2008 but some factors he wasn’t going through like health problems and improving Nadal were factors.

 

[KINGROGER]

Federer does reckon so. I think it is a bit exaggerated. He was better on the whole in 2004-2007 than 2008 but some factors he wasn’t going through like health problems and improving Nadal were factors.

Nadal wasn’t that much better in 2008 compared to 2007. The biggest difference was Federer’s level dropping. Hard to fault him after 4 years of consistent brilliance.

 

[metsman]

Ah so Nadal in 2008 who was playing the same level as 2007 made Federer play worse?

Nadal made Federer lose to Roddick, Fish, Stepanek, Blake, Karlovic, Simon?

Nadal in 2008 was so good that Federer thought he was going to invent time travel, and go back and beat Djoker in the 08 IW semi instead of being thrashed. Therefore, Fed had no choice but to make 80 UFE and lost to Fish in the second semi to avoid Nadal.

Same thing happened at YEC. Federer was shaking in his boots that Nadal would get a free wild card into the semis, because he made the semis in 07 and he was so much better in 08 that the organizers wouldn't have a choice and thus he tanked to Simon and Murray while barely beating Stepanek to save face.

 

[RS]

Nadal in 2008 was so good that Federer thought he was going to invent time travel, and go back and beat Djoker in the 08 IW semi instead of being thrashed. Therefore, Fed had no choice but to make 80 UFE and lost to Fish in the second semi to avoid Nadal.

Same thing happened at YEC. Federer was shaking in his boots that Nadal would get a free wild card into the semis, because he made the semis in 07 and he was so much better in 08 that the organizers wouldn't have a choice and thus he tanked to Simon and Murray while barely beating Stepanek to save face.

Federer had back issues in late 2008 which is when WTF/Paris was around.

 

[RS]

Nadal wasn’t that much better in 2008 compared to 2007. The biggest difference was Federer’s level dropping. Hard to fault him after 4 years of consistent brilliance.

Nadal was in his Prime in both. Grass and Clay were similar but Nadal was better on HC in 2008 esp on Faster surfaces.
Federer did drop from 2004-2007 but that doesn’t mean he was not in his peak. In important events he was. From MC 2008 to Basel 2008 apart from a few off tornaments post Wimbeldon he was at his peak IMO.

 

[KINGROGER]

Nadal was in his Prime in both. Grass and Clay were similar but Nadal was better on HC in 2008 esp on Faster surfaces.
Federer did drop from 2004-2007 but that doesn’t mean he was not in his peak. In important events he was. From MC 2008 to Basel 2008 apart from a few off tornaments post Wimbeldon he was at his peak IMO.

Fed and Nadal didn’t play on HC in 2008. And peak Federer does not lose 3,1,0 in RG final, go 2 sets down in a Wimbledon final, lose to likes of Karlovic, Blake and Simon on HC.

 

[metsman]

Federer had back issues in late 2008 which is when WTF/Paris was around.

I am aware

 

[BeatlesFan]

No such thing as 3 GOATs.There is only one and imo it is Roger Federer.

The best career by a ton is Federer and how anyone can argue that is beyond belief. Do you want 20 slams or 17? Or 13? Do you want 310 weeks at #1 or 200?

End of it.

 

[RS]

Fed and Nadal didn’t play on HC in 2008. And peak Federer does not lose 3,1,0 in RG final, go 2 sets down in a Wimbledon final, lose to likes of Karlovic, Blake and Simon on HC.

I meant Nadal 2008 was better than 2007 on HC.
Federer was below par in the F vs Nadal no doubt.
Federer will always make it tight if in form.
You can lose to anyone with less belief.
In my opinion you can call MC 200asel 2008 overall a peak Federer.

 

[RS]

The best career by a ton is Federer and how anyone can argue that is beyond belief. Do you want 20 slams or 17? Or 13? Do you want 310 weeks at #1 or 200?

End of it.

Nadal is closing the gap. He has a solid chance or catching the 20 slams titles and some of the other records.

 

[RS]

There are many statistics and trophies and whatever that someone uses to determine who is best, from grand slams, to titles to h2h to weeks at nr1

But the big 3 are all very close in many of these categories, and many of these categories is a very bad determining factor of how good someone is.

Head to head between 2 players is a very bad determining factor of how good someone is as a tennis player.

There are many factors why.

For example:

1.How good someone is on a particular day (rarely if ever are you 100%, many times you are 90% or 95% or 98% or 92% or 87%.. this can mean the difference between winning and losing)

2.Are you 100% healthy? sick? have a small injury that affect you on that day? It can also mean the difference between winning and losing.

3.Luck... yes luck.. the margins in tennis are so small, think USO 2011 SF, if Djokovic misses that lucky ball bashing return he losses, but now he goes on to win.. sometimes such plays or even worse some netcords or even more lucky shots can mean the difference between winning and losing

4.How good you are in general that particular year and how many times do you play your opponent? There are ups and downs, peaks that players have, then bad years.. imagine you are a peak 2011 Djokovic, or a peak 2006 Fed, or a peak 2008 Nadal, and you play your rivals 10 times that year... and then you are in bad shape 2016 Djokovic, or 2013 Fed, or 2015 Nadal and you play your rivals 3 times that year... now reverse it and say you play them 3 times at your peak and 10 times when ur not.. the difference the h2h would be in these two different scenarios is HUGE.

5.Playstyle, someone just doesn't suit ur playstyle at all, a good example of this is Nadal playing defensive tennis and running down balls and giving Federer trouble on his backhand high loopy shots in his early days, and now again nowadays its reversed and Nadal playing more aggressive tennis suits Federer much better and now he has the advantage.

6.How many times did you play your rivals on your favorite surface and vice versa?

Dubai is one of Rogers best surfaces, so is cincinnati, he is 3:1 in each of those against Djokovic.

Meanwhile Rome and Indian Wells suit Djokovic much better, he is 3:0 and 3:0 there...

One of the more loopsided statistics that prove exactly this point is Nadal.

Nadal has quite a big h2h advantage vs Federer and Djokovic, however if you look at it closely, look how many times they played on Nadals favorite GS surface and how many times on the other 3.


Nadal Djokovic

AO 1
WIM 3
USO 3
FO 7

Nadal Federer

AO 4
WIM 3
USO 0
FO 5


Djokovic dominates Nadal 18-7 h2h on hard courts and is a much better hard court player.

AO is also Djokovic's favorite surface and he has dominated there like nowhere else, and yet only meet Nadal there one single time because Nadal was not good enough to play him and lost against weaker opponents.

Djokovic is also great at the USO, but again he got completely exhausted from his insane SF matches against Fed many times, while Nadal always had easy draws when he managed to reach the final there, fresh as a daisy.

Djokovic is also a great grass court player, his serve is great and he is very natural on grass, meanwhile Nadal has been quite bad on grass for a long time now, but unluckly for Djokovic he did not meet Nadal when he was in his grass peak at 14-15.

Its safe to say h2h would be more like this if they played equally (7 times) everywhere:

AO 5:2 Djokovic
WIM 4:3 Djokovic
USO 4:3 Djokovic
FO 6:1 Nadal

Much much more closer than the h2h might look.



Its no secret for everyone that Fed at peak 04-07 was 7:2 against Rafa on HC and Grass, and he was also sick and not 100% at miami so should have been more like 8:1, he basically dominated Nadal everywhere but Clay.


USO was also Fed's favorite HC slam during that time, from 2004-2011 he won 5 times, was in F once and choked the win away, and twice lost in SF where he had match points in both.

Nadal was also getting outplayed at AO 09 but Fed had an injured back and choked the match away in the 5th set, so if they also met once more there during those times and healthy he would have won for sure.

Its safe to say the h2h would be more like this if they played equally (5 times) everywhere:

AO 3:2 Nadal
WIM 4:1 Federer
USO 4:1 Federer
FO 5:0 Nadal

Again, much much closer than the h2h might look.


Final conclusion

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all 3 great players, but all very different players.

Yes their matches when both players were at their best are all so close you could barely determine who wins, only a point or two here and there could change everything.

And there are so many factors and variables that basically its extremely hard to say one player is better than another player.

On their best day anyone can beat the other, they just all have advantages on different surfaces.

On fast courts Federer has the edge, on medium its Djokovic and on slow clay its Nadal.

Are you sure about 4/5 Federer at Wimbledon/USO?
It might be 3/5 for Federer even judging his difficulties with Nadal esp in Wimbeldon 2007-2008 and Nadal often finds it easier to play at the USO than Wimbeldon.
IMO Federer takes 4/5 at somewhere like Cincy/Shanghai for sure though.
Also from 2004-2007 Federer was 5-2 vs Nadal off clay not 7-2. And Miami 2005 could have gone Nadal way if not for thr line call since you mention Federer having flu in Miami 2004 so it is balanced.
I would argue at least one of USO/Wimbeldon going Nadal way. Djokovic would have his hands full with 2010 USO Nadal even in his 2011 form. And I don’t know if Djokovic 2015 is favoured over 2008 Nadal at Wimbledon as well.

 

[FiReFTW]

Are you sure about 4/5 Federer at Wimbledon/USO?
It might be 3/5 for Federer even judging his difficulties with Nadal esp in Wimbeldon 2007-2008 and Nadal often finds it easier to play at the USO than Wimbeldon.
IMO Federer takes 4/5 at somewhere like Cincy/Shanghai for sure though.
Also from 2004-2007 Federer was 5-2 vs Nadal off clay not 7-2. And Miami 2005 could have gone Nadal way if not for thr line call since you mention Federer having flu in Miami 2004 so it is balanced.
I would argue at least one of USO/Wimbeldon going Nadal way. Djokovic would have his hands full with 2010 USO Nadal even in his 2011 form. And I don’t know if Djokovic 2015 is favoured over 2008 Nadal at Wimbledon as well.

I don't know, I still think in Wimbledon 2008 Fed was not 100% due to mono and also Nadal was in his head alot due to the FO trashing.

I can see your arguments about the USO, it would depend what court they meet at tho and what form each of them is at, I assumed they meet most times during 2005 and 2013 so I gave Federer 4:1 lead due to the court being faster than nowadays, and based on results that Nadal had against del potro for example or Djokovic in 2011, and how Fed played against them and his form back then which was really good at the USO. If they meet there in more recent years it would probably be more towads Nadal due to the court being slower and higher bounce.