Razer
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic won slams vs instagram influencers and old Federer, broken down slow Nadal, I don't see why Court should be deemed irrelevant for her slams that she earned to set the record..
The Big Three Slam Race In Age
- Thread starter Hitman
- Start date
Djokovic won slams vs instagram influencers and old Federer, broken down slow Nadal, I don't see why Court should be deemed irrelevant for her slams that she earned to set the record..
NachoGPT
Hall of Fame
1970 Australian Open – Women's singles - Wikipedia
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Only 5 matches and best of 3 sets. Not even comparable. Pretty much the equivalent of an ATP 250/500.1970 Australian Open – Women's singles - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Comparison is always relative bud
Remember Court never played in Djokovic's field but even Djokovic never played in thr field of Sampras. They played diffrent set of players even though tour is same. So your claim on being better than someone from the past is pretty hollow anyway, so either you go with 24=24 or just never saying you are GOAT.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Incorrect
Correct axcording to the age. This is not about chronological.
And fhis is big 3 only.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
This is big 3 race only.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Hitman, it was never a race between Federer and Djokovic, you know it. Why to paint this as a race ?
A race always starts from the same start point, IMO it is dishonest to say that Fed and Djokovic were racing. Federer at the time of 2009-10 was like 16 vs 1 to Djokovic and that is because of the 6 years age gap to. It would be fair to say that Djokovic chased him, not raced him. Djokovic could be said to have raced Nadal as they are of the same age, grew up under similar circumstances and are direct peers. A chase should always be said to be a chase than present as if who reached 10 slams first or who reached 20 first etc as a race, it is never like that.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Razer
G.O.A.T.
It is not race..... Fed raced with Hewitt/Roddick and gang, these people and to some extent young Nadal too, all of them they are the ones who failed to stop Federer from reaching Pete's record of 14, not Djokovic. Djokovic was not that big a player to stop him. Similarly, the architect of Federer's record being broken are 90s gen, Murray, Stan, Nadal and to be a lesser extent old Federer because the burden to stop Djokovic from reaching 20 mainly rested on 90s gen and Nadal, they failed and thus we have what it is.
Ok, anyway I understand that you want to compare players age by age, well this is already done on Wikipedia
Link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...champions_in_Open_Era_with_age_of_first_title
For ATP
For Ladies
Last edited:
Hitman
Bionic Poster
It is not race..... Fed raced with Hewitt/Roddick and gang, these people and to some extent young Nadal too, all of them they are the ones who failed to stop Federer from reaching Pete's record of 14, not Djokovic. Djokovic was not that big a player to stop him. Similarly, the architect of Federer's record being broken are 90s gen, Murray, Stan, Nadal and to be a lesser extent old Federer because the burden to stop Djokovic from reaching 20 mainly rested on 90s gen and Nadal, they failed and thus we have what it is.
Ok, anyway I understand that you want to compare players age by age, well this is already done on Wikipedia
Link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...champions_in_Open_Era_with_age_of_first_title
For ATP
For Ladies
I didn't coin the term slam race.
You need to speak to the ATP, ITF and others about it.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Sure, but the ATP/ITF are the same people clubbing WTA and ATP numbers these days and marketing it.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
They do whatever they want, because they can.
Incognito
Legend
No way lol. That kinda looks like RublevOr small cats...
jl809
Legend
Mm that’s not apples to apples though. 2011 was basically Djoker’s peak and he was turning 24 at the time. Fed was emerging in 03 and was turning 22. A more accurate comparison is 2005 Fed to 2011 Djokovic (same age, coincidentally both pretty peak). Likewise 2009 Djoker vs 2003 Fed, 2010 Djoker vs 2004 Fed.. things get very ugly for Djoker here, at least prime for prime. Ties into...
The main argument that Fed fans make here is that Fed could have handled stronger competition at the USO in the mid 00s - he would have handled Djokovic just fine at Wimbledon and the US Open had they been direct contemporaries who were the same age in the mid 00s. And there’s pretty good evidence for this. The two best ever versions of Djokovic at the US Open (a) should have been sent home in 2011 and (b) lost more points and conceded more BPs in more games than a 34 yo Fed in 2015. Prime Djoker was 2-1 vs a Fed who was clearly past his prime at Wimbledon, where 1 win was in 5 sets (2014), and his loss was in 4 (2012)
If anything, 2011 and late 2014 - mid 2016 implies that peak Federer had a higher ceiling than peak Djoker. A ‘definitely not prime’ Fed beat Djokovic at RG by summoning the spirit of his prime, and judging by how RG and the US Open went in 2011, I don’t think we can even make Djoker the favourite had they played at Wimbledon in that year. Late 2014-mid 2016 Djokovic lost every match he played against 33/34 year old Fed on fast HC without winning a set
Now where this falls down a bit is what @Hitman has been saying about the younger versions of them. Because Djoker was much better than Federer across all the slams before both of them hit 22/23. He would have reached 3 USO finals (probably winning 2) without prime Fed in the way. Although the flip side to that in turn is
Either way, this was Fed’s ultimate failure to become GOAT: he was ass before 2003 and didn’t make enough of that period at all. Aside from Sinner, Fed had easily the worst results by a young version of a recent ATG. Hewitt winning Wimbledon and the US Open, Goran winning Wimbledon, Roddick winning the US Open.. this was a golden opportunity for a player of that talent
I'd rewatch the final if I were you. After set 1, Ned became really, really good. Choked away the second set, so really could have gone 5 against peak Fed in his first Wimbledon final, which is insane. He entered a period of 13 incredible sets of grass court tennis in a row against peak/prime Fed.
What evidence do you have for this??
This is nonsense. Person A could win 30 slams, every masters etc by winning 1 or 2 slams every year for 20 years, winning Rome 1 year, Paris indoors the next, etc…. and have 0 weeks at number 1, because person B wins the other 2/3 slams every year for the first 5 years, person C wins 2/3 slams for the next 5 years, etc, etc
Then idiots would say Person A isn’t the GOAT because he should have won 10 of his slams in a 3 year period or something like that to “dominate” it. Rubbish. Alcaraz hasn't 'dominated' the era since 2023 and already has 7 slams and has broken almost all the youngster records
Last edited:
Giocoswitch
Semi-Pro
Guess that's fair, in general I never like giving losers on the day benefit of the doubt in hypothetical matchups but no doubt Nadal's level was overall very high in sets 2-4. Just not sure it would be enough to 100% guarantee victory with the very un-Nadal-like lapses.
Even beyond the 01-03 period which was poor enough in hindsight, in terms of underperformance I think Pheasant had some stats the other day about how 04 Fed was statistically about as good as he ever got on clay, and through that lens getting straight setted by that version of Guga at RG was surely the worst defeat of his prime years. From 05 onwards you can't say he left a ton on the table, but reaching his all-surface peak performance levels late probably cost him more than anyone else in history.
Still makes no sense whatsoever when players are totally competing from different era.
What were the final H2Hs? Who owned who? What are you talking about 17 year old? Roddick was destroying Djokovic after he won a slam in his prime! You should ignore them because you are obtuse enough to think they are easy pickings.
Where are the ones 5 to 6 years younger? Nadal in 2005 for god sakes. Fed had one fully year in 2004 without Nadal. Djokovic had what, 15 without YOUNGER ATGs.
Djokovic was prime in 2008, he beat a prime Federer at the AO, that's a huge achievement. Djokovic was not 17. Ergo he was prime.
LOL, you bring up Agassi being 34 in 2004 or so and then have the nerve to blame Todd Martin for ruining Djokovic's serve? LOLLLL what a joke. Djokovic stunk because everyone around him was just too good. Fed still prime, Nadal good too.
Not sure what your point about Roddick is, Djokovic won a slam in 2008 beating prime Federer, he beat him badly in fact, so he is definitely prime. Then Roddick proceeds to destroy him there after. Thems the facts. You can spin them any way you want, but bottom line is Roddick owned Djokovic. Does Roddick maintain his H2H? WTF? Who knows, maybe he does, don't be so sure he doesn't.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Federer played 90 matches against Djokodal overall
Nadal played 100 matches against Fedovic overall
Djokovic played 110 matches against Fedal overall
Different era or not, they were direct competitors, playing an insane amount of matches against the other two.
The point is, according to their age, who got their faster, and this thread shows that.
wow, I'm surprised your back spilling your usual drivel after I completely owned you in the other thread. Tsk, tsk, lying about Sinner being prime in 2022 and then quietly changing it to 2023 hoping no one would notice, LOLLLLL. You are so pathetic.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Federer didn't have one full year without Nadal. Federer was on the tour back in 98. Let's start from 99, he had five years before an ATG arrived onto the scene who was younger. If was unable to do anything earlier, that is on him, shows his limitations.
And why do you keep ignoring that Djokovic had Nadal all the way until 2022. Newsflash, Nadal was still winning RG titles, and beat Djokovic in a couple of them.
I have the neve to bring up Todd Martin? How dare I actually tell you what happened, how dare I tell you that Todd Martin messed up his stroke mechanics. Are you seriously telling me that Djokovic sucked so much in 2010 that he wasn't able to get a single win against a top ten for nine months because everyone else was so good? LMAO....what happened then in 2011.....let me guess, they all magically started to suck. What a joke indeed.
It is on Djokovic that his coach messed his stroke mechanics up, but that doesn't mean that Djokovic was losing because he playing his best and wasn't good enough, it was because his form had dipped. The same way Nadal's dipped in 2015. But lets just play the usual - Oh, Djokovic was always playing at this best, it is everyone else who lost form and allowed him to win. What a joke indeed.
The point about Roddick is quite simple - Here let me say it in a way so you understand very well.
Federer went 4-0 against Djokovic, they continued to play matches and Djokovic started beating him and ultimately owned the H2H
Roddick at age 30 decided to bow out, when Djokovic was only two years into his peak period of 2011-2016, and was crushed on grass and admitted the level was too high now
Now.....and pay attention here....
If you are telling me that Roddick would have STILL been leading the H2H had they continued to play a few more years, then you are admitting that Roddick is superior to Federer against Djokovic...because Federer failed to keep his 4-0 lead, but you think Roddick will.
Or...
You admit, to protect Federer here, that had Roddick continued playing a few more years and not gave up at age 30, Djokovic would have reversed the H2H on him also. Because if you say Roddick maintains it, then it shows Federer to be inferior player in direct match against Djokovic, and if that is what you think go for it.
Pick your poison.
GoatNo1
Legend
no, in the other thrived you came with claim that nole had NOONE in 18-23 period (or something like that)., and i answered that he had stil high performing fed until W19, rafa until 22, thiem in 2020 and alcaraz since 22. then when you ask about it i said raz since 22 and sinner since 2023. even before that i said the same many times. just that i used alcaraz thet time as their rice., mostly because they often are mention like a dominant duo!
They did not race against one another. Did the big 3 was informed 30 years ago that their goal will be get X, Y, Z... numbers by certain ages in their career? No.
The only race that can exist is when all big 3 begin to compete at the same time, same age, same competition, same set of goals. Capiche? As of now, we know Federer was not racing against ANYONE...he was the pacesetter, period!
It's like saying 2004 Gatlin beat 2002 Greene in a100 meter race because he had a faster time. See how ridiculous it is ?
Hitman
Bionic Poster
The slam race was happening between all three of them, Federer got the head start because he was the first who arrived on the scene.
Federer chased Sampras for basically all of his prime, until he was a month from turning 28.
Nadal started his chase behind Federer, when Federer had only four slams - it was 4-1 in slams at one point, the same as what Alcaraz and Sinner was after W 2004.
Djokovic joined last, three years later.
The race was simple, who ends up with the most slams, since they were in direct competition with each other, and were directly stopping each other in slam finals and slam semis. That makes them rivals.
This thread shows the pace at which each of the three was going, relative to their age. Nadal was the first of the three to get to 10, Federer then was faster to get to 17, and Djokovic ultimately got to 20 before both of them.
messiahrobins
G.O.A.T.
Consistency doesnt equate to greatness.
20 years ago no one was telling Federer that someone will win 24 slams in the future and his goal is to beat this number. You can't be racing when you are a pacesetter because there's no goal/target.
Federer chase Sampras but do you hear any Federer fan say Sampras lost the slam race? lol
Agree that Nadal was the chaser, and Federer was the hunted and the pacesetter after winning 14 slams. Nadal has a goal/target because Federer set the bar.
Djokovic won his first true slam was in 2011 after Federer won 16 slams. Sorry they are not racing against one another.
This thread is about pace, but has nothing to do with racing. in a REAL race, there's no pacesetter, all competitors start at the same time.
Your flawed logic is no difference from saying Gatlin was racing with Greene who lost the race.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
The logic was to win the mots slams in his time, whatever that number may be.
Sampras and Federer didn't race each other, because Sampras won his last slam in 2002 and didn't play a single match. His slam race run was over. Federer's first slam was W 2003. They didn't really overlap.
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were all directly taking slams off of each other.
It seems you don't like the term Race - You should talk to ATP/ITF about it, this is their coined term, not mine.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Oh yea Djokovic's should count because he won a Slam at 20 years and 8 months and Federer's should be ignored since he took until almost 22 to win a Slam. Such nonsense and hypocritical logic. What were the final h2hs you say. How many matches did Nalbandian and Henman play against peak Federer? A lot. How many matches did Roddick and Safin play against peak Djokovic? 1. Roddick barely won the h2h 5-4 anyway. If anybody is acting obstuse here, it's you.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Yep. Lets hold them both to different standards.
Then we get told that Djokovic fans complain that tennis only started in 2011, but look at this....apparently tennis started in 2003 at W, unless we speak about the match with Sampras.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea it's a total double standard on his part and trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Yea, and it must be that tennis didn't start until 2004 since Henman was killing Federer before that.
Federer being the greatest? No, sir, he was too fragile mentally and psychologically, that was why he lost to Djokovic three times, twice on his own serve, when he had MP's. The greatest has to be mentally and physically strong.
As I said, if Federer had managed to subdue Djokovic at those moments, then I would regard him as the greatest among the big 3. Was that a big thing to ask? No, people close out matches all the time with MP on the line!
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Henman being 6-1 against him....imagine if Henman also decided to just retire at that point instead of playing well past his best days, how would that look on Federer?
And the excuse that Federer wasn't prime doesn't work, he was in fact peak, with two slams and world number one to his name, yet Henman gave him his first loss as the world number one.
But because Safin, who retired in 2009 and not even faced peak Djokovic of 2011, and Roddick, who retired at 30, only two years into Djokovic's peak, they owned him.
Well sure, the same way Rafter owned Federer, the lame reasoning that it doesn't count because Federer didn't win a slam shows the low level hypocrisy of basically saying nothing before W 2003 counts, and then at the same time complaining Djokovic fans think tennis only started in 2011....
FlyingSaucer
Hall of Fame
lmao
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
If Henman had retired on his 30th birthday like Roddick did, he wins the h2h 6-3. 4-5 is still better than 3-6.
It's all just grasping at straws tbh and being hypocritical. If wins against Djokovic at ages 17-22 means they "owned him" then the same reasoning should apply when looking at who had winning records over Federer at ages 17-22, and they "owned him" as well.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Well yes, lets not let facts get in the way of nonsensical narratives.
And here's the thing, Henman is from the generation directly ahead of Federer's from which there was no ATG player. Imagine that, Henman who wasn't even ATG still managed to be 6-3 on his 30 birthday against Federer, before as a few Fed fans like to say, vultured win against a player in his 30s - then imagine Federer's state facing one or two ATG in their peaks from Henman's generation and how that would have impacted his run at the top.
As said, Agassi was 3-0 against Federer until he turned 33. So why was Federer unable to beat him before then? Oh - the lame, no matches before W 2003 count. LMAO - You couldn't write better hypocrisy if you tried.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Well bringing up h2h records as some negative against Djokovic when you're a Federer fan is a hard sell anyway, since Federer has more of those losing records than Djokovic does. I guess any fan can if they want to use a double standard and say "well those losses don't count because Federer had yet to win a Slam".Well yes, lets not let facts get in the way of nonsensical narratives.
And here's the thing, Henman is from the generation directly ahead of Federer's from which there was no ATG player. Imagine that, Henman who wasn't even ATG still managed to be 6-3 on his 30 birthday against Federer, before as a few Fed fans like to say, vultured win against a player in his 30s - then imagine Federer's state facing one or two ATG in their peaks from Henman's generation and how that would have impacted his run at the top.
As said, Agassi was 3-0 against Federer until he turned 33. So why was Federer unable to beat him before then? Oh - the lame, no matches before W 2003 count. LMAO - You couldn't write better hypocrisy if you tried.
At the end of the day, Henman is 7 years older than Federer and Roddick is only 5 years older than Djokovic. So why did Federer do worse than Djokovic since 6 years is supposed to be the cutoff for having a major disadvantage or so they keep telling us? And as far as if Federer had to face peak ATGs it totally changes things and his ascension to the top.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Imagine saying no losses against Wawrinka count until he was 28. How ridiculous does that sound?
And yes, we know there are double standards. You saw the arguments to justify 34-35 year old Agassi as an exemption by saying he didn't play enough early on, despite him being on the tour since 1986...
Simply put, the bitterness is outstanding from quite a lot of people, not all people, but by quite a substantial amount that their guy didn't win the slam race.
We saw how numbers were thrown around without context like gang signs - We saw the 17>14>12 and the 20>19 own it bud and move on nonsense.....but now when the shoe is on the other foot, context is needed. A bunch of sore losers IMO, no other way to put it.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea and it has to be said, and to call out their hypocrisy once the dynamic changed.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
We all know the numbers matter, that is why they are so angry and bitter, with a few projecting their feelings onto others.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I don't know why they are arguing everyday anyway like it's going to change anything. The numbers are way more in Djokovic's favor than they ever were in Federer's. If they don't want to accept Djokovic as the greatest then that's fine and one thing, but Djokovic is definitely the greatest of his era. Feelings aren't changing that.
But Federer wasn't prime until W2003. So yes, about 1 year without Nadal.
Because Nadal was not close to his prime level by 2022, it took a massive choke by Med to win the AO, which he was otherwise going down in straights. Nadal had a lot of mileage on his body by 2022 so not much competition for Djokovic outside of clay. Just compare their HC results after 2013. Nadal actually used to put up a fight even on HC against djokovic up to about 2013. After that it was all Djokovic because Nadal had declined, relatively.
But you're not actually telling me what happened. You are telling me what you think happened. Pay attention to that difference. Djokovic sucked so much in 2009 because of stronger competition AND he wasn't peak yet. Both things. 2010 wasn't so strong, it was rather weak actually but Djokovic was still not yet peak to take advantage of it (he was prime though).
Your analogy doesn't really make sense because Djokovic and Roddick are different players. Yes Djokovic eventually took over in the H2H against Fed, but that doesn't mean it would happen with Roddick. It might. It might not. On top of that, it's not really a fair comparison since Roddick is much older, so he would have a disadvantage later on. You don't seem to understand that leading the H2H against Djokovic is not just a simple lead. It was OLD Roddick against PRIME Djokovic, which is why I make such a big deal out of it. Had they played on Djokovic took the lead, it still wouldn't mean much becaus he would have been beating up on an old Roddick, similar to how Djokovic took over the Fed H2H, most matches took place when Fed was much older and Djokovic still peak, so he vultured as he is well known for.
No poison. Again, the analogy doesn't work. because matchups are a thing. Roddick may simply matchup better against Djokovic allowing him to keep the edge whereas Fed could not. But again, it doesn't matter if Djokovic took over, those would be meaningless wins since Roddick was much older. This is why the Sinner loss to Djokovic was so so huge. And OLD Djokovic badly exposed Sinner. Grigor did something similar. Sinner just looks so dominating now because the rest of guys are pretty much nothing, bar Alcaraz. And before you go on about Mensik, he again, LOL he disappeared once again just as I predicted. He is nothing too.
Do you admit you lied and changed Sinner from 2022 to 2023?
Not sure what you're talking about here. Djokovic reached prime at an earlier age than Federer, much like Nadal did too. Some players develop more slowly. Nalbandian is great, I agree, he could take prime Fed and Nadal to the woodshed.
Bottom line is both Safin and Roddick own Djokovic's arse, thems the facts. Roddick won barely but it was old Roddick against prime Djokovic, so actually he won by a lot. Talk about obtuse, LOL.
GoatNo1
Legend
yes fed is a miracle. late bloomer that wilted too early! "prime" djokovic was "owned" of "old" rodick but nole was still "young and prime" when he beat pre prime "baby sinner" in 2022 and 2023!
so
05 and 08 safin owned peak (17-21 YO) nole and 08-10 post prime and old (26-28 YO) roddick owned peak (20-23 YO) nole
while still peak nole (35-36 YO) won vs pre prime and baby (21-22 YO) sinner! and of course pre prime and post prime but never prime fed!
Another cheap shot from you!
Safin retired when Djokovic was 21; they played in exactly 2 matches. Roddick and Djokovic played in exactly 2 slam matches, the last one when Djokovic was 21 years old. It's like saying Zverev owned Federer, because he won their personal series 4-3.
The important is this: the two players that Federer played the most in slams, both had staggeringly positive results against him. Djokovic and Nadal had 11-6 and 10-4 against Federer, the 2nd and 3rd most of all time.
Safin and Roddick didn't own Djokovic, but it could be said that Djokovic and Nadal did own Federer.
Last edited:
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I guess Wawrinka was not prime until he was 28 and won his first slam. Let have a good laugh here.
If Federer wasn't in his prime, that is his freaking inadequacies. He doesn't get a free pass for sucking for so long before he won a slam. Losing H2H against Rafter 0-3, losing H2H against Agassi 0-3, losing H2H against Nalbadian -0-5, losing H2H against Henman 1-6, losing H2H against Hewitt 2-7.....
I don't buy your explanation. But you are entitled to it.
Nadal STILL won RG from 2017 to 2020, and then again in 2022. In that process of winning 5 freaking RG titles, one less than Borg's entire count, he beat everybody including Djokovic twice....his only loss from 2017 to 2022 was an epic clash with Djokovic that had one of the most brutal sets of tennis ever played....One hour forty minutes. Nadal might not at his absolute best, but he was still playing well enough to dominate RG and like it or not, Djokovic was tangoing with the clay GOAT there until the bitter end.
I know Nadal and Djokovic had mileage, between it all the same between equals. Nadal wasn't losing to anyone else there and you know it. Only Djokovic could beat him. And before you tell me he wasn't competition for Djokovic outside of HC, well, Nadal only stopped Federer on clay during Federer's absolute peak also. Federer didn't lose to Nadal until several years later. So what is the difference?
No, I am telling you what happened, because everyone talked about if you pay attention you can see how Djokovic's serve among other things changed. Don't intentionally be blind and ignorant, I already told you Djokovic served significantly more DF than Aces, that has not to do with competition, that has everything to do with your serve breaking down and putting you at a disadvantage.
In 2009 Djokovic burnt himself out trying to beat Nadal on clay, if it wasn't for Djokovic weakening Nadal up, Federer might not have won RG that year, because we know he cannot beat Nadal at RG.
Yet you tell me how Agassi was valid competition at 34-35 against Federer, despite a freaking 11 year difference. Do you admit then Federer's wins were vulturing over Agassi?
What you fail to understand is that Djokovic's best years were 2011 to 2016, these are the years he played his best tennis, had his biggest wins, dominated the top ten, and out of those years, Roddick only was around for two of them. So Djokovic didn't get a Roddick for his full run.
I mean, it has been point out then Henman was 6-3 against Federer when he turned 30, the only reason Federer barely turned the H2H around was, unlike Roddick who gave up and admitted the game has passed him by, Henman stuck around allowing Federer some cheap wins.
Looks like Federer vultured significantly himself, he was owned by several players until they got too old. But at least you admit that Federer had not ATG up to ten years older than him and didn't have no ATG up to five year younger than him, allowing his peak to be in the middle of a 15 barren period of zero ATG that allowed him to inflate his numbers. So we made some progress.
The analogy does work, because you are telling me Roddick could handle Djokovic better than your GOAT Federer could, you would think your GOAT would be able to rise above all that and not let a one slam wonder outperform him against his numerically biggest rival. Fair enough, if you feel Roddick is superior to Federer when it comes to Djokovic.
Last edited:
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
You're just confirming what we've already said. The comparison shows them at the same age right? Then it's a double standard to wave away those losing h2h's because according to you, Djokovic was in his prime and Federer wasn't. Pretty rich to say 2010 Djokovic was playing prime tennis anyway with a shoddy serve and a 4-8 record against the top 10. 2002 Federer was 10-5 against the top 10 but he had yet to win a Slam so those matches don't count. Ok fine, then Nalbandian and Henman owned Federer's arse. Poor Federer entered his prime at 22 and left it at 28. He must have had the shortest prime in history.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Doesn't really bode well for GOAT status then.
Federer qualified for the TMC in 2002 and won all three of his RR matches before losing an epic, but apparently that Federer doesn't count.
How about Guga owning him with that hip in 2004 at RG, while also being older and run down himself....2-1 H2H
Everyone knows Djokovic was just in terrible form in 2010, the same way Nadal was in 2015. Funny how only Djokovic is not allowed to be in poor form, that excuse is only for Federer and Nadal, he was always at his best....the hypocrisy.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
They keep shooting themselves in the foot. If he's the GOAT, how can his prime be that short?
Straight setted both Kafelnikov and Safin in DC as well who were both higher ranked at the time.
I forgot about the Guga losses and those were in 2003 and 2004, so he's backed himself into a corner and no waving those away. Guga owns Federer's arse and that's final. lol
Again, it's just grasping and not arguing in good faith.
