The difference of career ending between big 3

aldeayeah

G.O.A.T.
The first little pig built his house out of grass, and so when the big bad wolf came, he blew it down easily.

The second little pig built his house out of clay, and so when the big bad wolf came, he blew it down as well.

The third little pig built his house out of hardcourt, and so when the big bad wolf came, he huffed and puffed and huffed and puffed, all to no avail.
 
Last edited:

Biotic

Hall of Fame
The first little pig built his house out of grass, and so when the big bad came, he blew it down easily.

The second little pig built his house out of clay, and so when the big bad wolf came, he blew it down as well.

The third little pig built his house out of hardcourt, and so when the big bad wolf came, he was stumped.
The second little pig never liked indoor conditions anyway.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Federer ended with w19 which would have sealed goat status.
Djokovic has completed everything and nothing can hurt him anymore.
That makes 0 sense but ok.

Federer's career looked done, hadn't won a slam since 2012 and he was down and out especially in 2016 with all the injuries and losses and then he won not one but 2 slams in 2017 including that epic 2017 Aus Open final, returns to #1. What a comeback. To call his ending an eternal tragedy is hilarious.

Also, Djokovic? We don't know how he finishes his career. If he ends it right now then it's a perfect ending, although just like Federer, he'd have lost his last slam final. So maybe not that perfect? ;)
 

ballamaz

Rookie
Federer ending was defined by injury, not ageing like Nadal. He had a timely send-off at Wimbledon champions parade and Lavers cup surrounded by contemporaries as he wanted.

OTOH Nadal has been in the wilderness for > 2 years now, continually getting beat by low rank players. And yet he can't call time. That seems more like an eternal nightmare.
 

ChrisRF

Legend
Federer is a billionaire, and probably will be seen as GOAT once recency bias evaporates given his overall impact on the game which dwarfs Nadal and Djokovic in truth. How was that a tragic ending exactly?
I agree that is wasn't tragic, because just like with Nadal there's also nothing to regret. If you lose your last set 6-0 at your "home court", then you know you're done, and so do your fans.

However, I think you are too optimistic concerning his legacy. I think that he's still in the GOAT contention NOW is recency bias because of his aura and playing style. If that evaporates, then this era (like any past era) will only live on in statistics, and then Federer and Nadal will be the also-runners of the Djokovic era.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
The first little pig built his house out of grass, and so when the big bad wolf came, he blew it down easily.

The second little pig built his house out of clay, and so when the big bad wolf came, he blew it down as well.

The third little pig built his house out of hardcourt, and so when the big bad wolf came, he was stumped.

Plot twist....

Djokovic is the big bad wolf.
 

aldeayeah

G.O.A.T.
Plot twist....

Djokovic is the big bad wolf.
I thought he was a Falcon?

FIY7LhSXsAsNAJe
 

Omega Mouse

Rookie
Federer is a billionaire, and probably will be seen as GOAT once recency bias evaporates given his overall impact on the game which dwarfs Nadal and Djokovic in truth. How was that a tragic ending exactly?
You're coping. It's obvious that Federer blew many chances. He dropped the ball and caved under pressure on multiple big occasions. You think Federer cares that he's a billionaire? You actually believe losing 40-15 TWICE to Djokovic has ANYTHING to do with "recency" bias? lol... cry more.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic ends with perfection and euphoria.
Federer in eternal tragedy.
Nadal is in the middle with no regrets.

Interesting contrast of fate.

One of the most greatest & successful tennis player of all time and the 1st tennis billionaire ends in tragedy. LOL

What a stupid thread
 

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
The first little pig built his house out of grass, and so when the big bad wolf came, he blew it down easily.

The second little pig built his house out of clay, and so when the big bad wolf came, he blew it down as well.

The third little pig built his house out of hardcourt, and so when the big bad wolf came, he huffed and puffed and huffed and puffed, all to no avail.
The the shepherd came and gathered all the pigs to be slaughtered.
 
Fedrer legacy is more about emotional attachment rather than clarity. Fedrer was ATG player but when you subjectively asses then nadal comes in...murray comes in ...Sampras is also there... Rod laver CYGS comes in mind...All this leads to one conclusion that there is no GOAT there but if you have to find complete resume Novak resume is most complete. Who still denies novak acheivement by giving one or other excuses is living in some other universe.
People have diffrent preference but to say 20>22>24 is insult to the person who has won 24. Wining slam is not easy as it looks because of big3 dominance. It took 24 years to find someone who has won 4 slams. So enjoy till novak plays and then we will meet in former player forum
 
You're coping. It's obvious that Federer blew many chances. He dropped the ball and caved under pressure on multiple big occasions. You think Federer cares that he's a billionaire? You actually believe losing 40-15 TWICE to Djokovic has ANYTHING to do with "recency" bias? lol... cry more.
Read that message of yours again and then figure out who out of us both is crying lol. Envy was one of the seven sins...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMR
I agree that is wasn't tragic, because just like with Nadal there's also nothing to regret. If you lose your last set 6-0 at your "home court", then you know you're done, and so do your fans.

However, I think you are too optimistic concerning his legacy. I think that he's still in the GOAT contention NOW is recency bias because of his aura and playing style. If that evaporates, then this era (like any past era) will only live on in statistics, and then Federer and Nadal will be the also-runners of the Djokovic era.
Yes take your point, i think the GOAT debate wont actually be settled from this era for a few years yet once all three are no longer relevant or in the public eye. Of course the irony is that by then the Big 3 wont care anyway as their lives will have moved on from tennis.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Fed is never going to be seen as goat

Don't kid yourself.
I concur with your philosophico-methodological analysis. Federer will remain a brutal legend on its won, an artist part of the magical Big 3, the golden era of tennis... but not the GOAT. Which is not that much of a big deal, being the 3rd greatest of the Open Era is something legendary in itself.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
I concur with your philosophico-methodological analysis. Federer will remain a brutal legend on its won, an artist part of the magical Big 3, the golden era of tennis... but not the GOAT. Which is not that much of a big deal, being the 3rd greatest of the Open Era is something legendary in itself.
I am sure right now he is third greatest in open era but new players will come and even break Djokovic's numbers.

Djokovic will not be goat forever but he will be better than fed in same era. While Nadal has his claim as clay goat.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Yesterday while watching Emily in Paris, we saw them going to Roland garros. And right at the opening we see Nadal statue.

What he has done is impossible to repeat.
 

KingCarlitos

Hall of Fame
Yes. Djokovic record will break but Nadal's is difficult.
I wouldn’t say so, Slam record maybe but It requires extreme longevity and also weeks at No.1 would be very hard too, They may stand until Alcaraz breaks them or they may stand for another 30 yrs or even 50 yrs, nobody knows.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
I wouldn’t say so, Slam record maybe but It requires extreme longevity and also weeks at No.1 would be very hard too, They may stand until Alcaraz breaks them or they may stand for another 30 yrs or even 50 yrs, nobody knows.
Yes

Gill gross says in 50 years all the big 3 records will break. It's true.

The careers will be longer and every record is meant to be broken.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Yeah, It’ll be funny if Alcaraz and Sinner are playing into their deep 40s And then the 2010s Gen starts dominating into their 50s.
Maybe but we can also have a situation where raz dominates while sinner wins 6/8 slams and rest 1/2 slams

Like Sampras in 90s but just for 6/7 more years

It's very possible to break 24 we just don't know who will.
 

KingCarlitos

Hall of Fame
Maybe but we can also have a situation where raz dominates while sinner wins 6/8 slams and rest 1/2 slams

Like Sampras in 90s but just for 6/7 more years

It's very possible to break 24 we just don't know who will.
Tbh, I really don’t think Sincaraz will have same longevity as Big Three, but y’ never know.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
I think that attaching the word "tragedy" to the ending of Federer's career is a wild overstatement. Sure, he choked a couple of huge matches that he should have won, and that will probably always gnaw at him. Many professional athletes end up with one or two painful regrets about their careers. It's clear that thinking about 1984 Roland Garros still hurts McEnroe, and it's been 40 years since that loss.

But at this point, Federer probably looks at his accomplishments more holistically. The best any athlete can realistically hope for is to surpass those who came before him and to exceed those who came up with him. Those who come afterward ... well, that's hard to control directly. And Nadal (five years younger) and Djokovic (six years younger) did come afterward, despite the significant career overlaps. Federer's peak years were 2004 through 2007. And people sometimes forget that he turned pro in 1998! Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi won a combined total of eight slams during Federer's pro career. Federer played Agassi 11 times; Djokovic never played Agassi. On the other end, Djokovic has a nice late-career rivalry with Alcaraz; Federer never played Alcaraz.

So while Djokovic and Nadal bested Federer more often than not, especially in the second decade of the 21st century, I think Fed is probably pretty philosophical about that. He did what he could in his allotted time. He broke the records for most slam wins and most weeks at No. 1, and he held the slam record longer than Sampras did. He was the first male player to win 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 slams. I doubt that he ever thought, "I'm going to be the consensus GOAT until the day I die." And regardless of who is judged the GOAT in the future -- even if Djokovic's impressive records are somehow surpassed -- the phenomenon of the Big Three may not ever be replicated, and Fed's probably proud of his role in that too.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
I think that attaching the word "tragedy" to the ending of Federer's career is a wild overstatement. Sure, he choked a couple of huge matches that he should have won, and that will probably always gnaw at him. Many professional athletes end up with one or two painful regrets about their careers. It's clear that thinking about 1984 Roland Garros still hurts McEnroe, and it's been 40 years since that loss.

But at this point, Federer probably looks at his accomplishments more holistically. The best any athlete can realistically hope for is to surpass those who came before him and to exceed those who came up with him. Those who come afterward ... well, that's hard to control directly. And Nadal (five years younger) and Djokovic (six years younger) did come afterward, despite the significant career overlaps. Federer's peak years were 2004 through 2007. And people sometimes forget that he turned pro in 1998! Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi won a combined total of eight slams during Federer's pro career. Federer played Agassi 11 times; Djokovic never played Agassi. On the other end, Djokovic has a nice late-career rivalry with Alcaraz; Federer never played Alcaraz.

So while Djokovic and Nadal bested Federer more often than not, especially in the second decade of the 21st century, I think Fed is probably pretty philosophical about that. He did what he could in his allotted time. He broke the records for most slams wins and most weeks at No. 1, and he held the slam record longer than Sampras did. He was the first male player to win 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 slams. I doubt that he ever thought, "I'm going to be the consensus GOAT until the day I die." And regardless of who is judged the GOAT in the future -- even if Djokovic's impressive records are somehow surpassed -- the phenomenon of the Big Three may not ever be replicated, and Fed's probably proud of his role in that too.
Djokovic is in sweet spot.

He will have 1/2 more years to battle it out vs next ATG sinner and alcaraz. While being part of the big 3 era.

He has held his own and people will remember these battles fondly. Which is why I want to see Djokovic going through both once at slams. Maybe in 2 weeks
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Why is Federer in eternal tragedy?

Also how can we say what Djokovic's career ending narrative is since he's still playing?
He ended his career brought down from his throne: best records destroyed by both rivals, crushed at his best slam in his last outing, either intentionally or by cruel irony, humiliated in almost identical fashion to his most infamous loss at his last ever professional event where he played doubles at a circus tournament and ultimately being etched in history as third of three great players of his era when he began as possibly first. He is the definition of "how the mighty have fallen" and as an ardent fan of his, I too, live in regret.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
That makes 0 sense but ok.

Federer's career looked done, hadn't won a slam since 2012 and he was down and out especially in 2016 with all the injuries and losses and then he won not one but 2 slams in 2017 including that epic 2017 Aus Open final, returns to #1. What a comeback. To call his ending an eternal tragedy is hilarious.

Also, Djokovic? We don't know how he finishes his career. If he ends it right now then it's a perfect ending, although just like Federer, he'd have lost his last slam final. So maybe not that perfect? ;)
Fed won 3 more slams and solved the Nadal riddle.

Yes, Wimb 2019 would've been nice, but eternal tragedy is pushing it.
 
Top