Unpopular opinion that you know majority won't agree with?

ForehandCross

ForehandCross

G.O.A.T.
Mine would be

1. Stan Wawrinka was going to beat Nadal in 4 or 5 in 2014 AO Final regardless of Nadal being healthy.

2. It will always be Big 4 for me. Murray was an integral part of the top 4 ranking from 2008 to 2017 mid. That's the peak years of Djokodal and Federer's late prime.

The big 4 as a term was never about who were going to win most slams. It was about 4 players who were constantly reaching the semis and finals of all tournaments played


3. A continuation of 2nd. Murray is an ATG who should have won 7-8 slams minimum.


4. Federer's best level ever was 2005 but it was evolved to tackle his own generation which were more of a second wave of transition to Baseline from SnV. However 2006-07 was most equipped to deal with the type of tennis that newer generation would bring.


5. Djokovic 's 2015 was not exactly as high a level as the results would have you believe, AO SF and Final was lacking , especially the SF despite being a 5 setter was tepid from both players. WB Final was a performance of a lifetime, but USO was very patchy. Early 2016 is where he hit his absolute humongous peak, similar to Nadal in mid 2008 and Federer in end of 2006 - early 2007.


6. Novak Djokovic is the best ever, from a playing level as well as being successful.
 
ForehandCross said:
Mine would be

1. Stan Wawrinka was going to beat Nadal in 4 or 5 in 2014 AO Final regardless of Nadal being healthy.

2. It will always be Big 4 for me. Murray was an integral part of the top 4 ranking from 2008 to 2017 mid. That's the peak years of Djokodal and Federer's late prime.

The big 4 as a term was never about who were going to win most slams. It was about 4 players who were constantly reaching the semis and finals of all tournaments played


3. A continuation of 2nd. Murray is an ATG who should have won 7-8 slams minimum.


4. Federer's best level ever was 2005 but it was evolved to tackle his own generation which were more of a second wave of transition to Baseline from SnV. However 2006-07 was most equipped to deal with the type of tennis that newer generation would bring.


5. Djokovic 's 2015 was not exactly as high a level as the results would have you believe, AO SF and Final was lacking , especially the SF despite being a 5 setter was tepid from both players. WB Final was a performance of a lifetime, but USO was very patchy. Early 2016 is where he hit his absolute humongous peak, similar to Nadal in mid 2008 and Federer in end of 2006 - early 2007.


6. Novak Djokovic is the best ever, from a playing level as well as being successful.
Click to expand...

I think 6 isn't really that controversial - I still think Federer had a higher peak (which would be true for more aggressive players and by no means suggests the player is superior overall), but if we talk about overall level and ability Djokovic has the better tools to succeed against the field (I phrase it like that cus the volley isn't as relevant anymore) with a better backhand, better return game, slightly better defence, and arguably better mental toughness. His serve and FH, while not a good as Fed's, are still ++ shots. Against Nadal he has the advantage in terms of the serve, backhand, return and arguably HC forehand. Also, being better at grass, hard, YEC and having more slams does it for me.
 
Clay lover said:
I think 6 isn't really that controversial - I still think Federer had a higher peak (which would be true for more aggressive players and by no means suggests the player is superior overall), but if we talk about overall level and ability Djokovic has the better tools to succeed against the field (I phrase it like that cus the volley isn't as relevant anymore) with a better backhand, better return game, slightly better defence, and arguably better mental toughness. His serve and FH, while not a good as Fed's, are still ++ shots. Against Nadal he has the advantage in terms of the serve, backhand, return and arguably HC forehand. Also, being better at grass, hard, YEC and having more slams does it for me.
Click to expand...

What would be your list
 
We need to have advantage set back for GS Finals rather than 10-point tiebreaks.

A 10-point tiebreak will never be as iconic. 16-14, 10-8, 9-7 WB, 9-7 RG, 13-12 are all iconic results most of us can identify just from the game scoreline.

The 13-12 and RG25 are remembered NOT for the exceedingly one-sided tiebreak (although, as an Alcaraz fan, the 8-0 was epic), but for the drama before at 8-7 and 11-11 and the RG25 final from 5-4 onwards.

The drama of trying to break and hold is far more. And tiebreaks, which are scored point by point, are rarely as close in the ultimate score (WB19 7-3, RG25 10-2).

Other stuff:

- Novak’s NCYGS isn’t any better than Federer’s WB-RG runs where he won 3 Slams and lost RG to Rafa. The only difference is in 2016, Nadal didn’t play RG

- It is absurd that tennis, a sport with three surfaces, plays 3 out of the 5 biggest annual tournaments on the same surface. This must change

- Fed having less Masters than Nadal/Djokovic isn’t a problem. Not his fault there weren’t any on grass

- The argument that “if there were two clay Slams, or if each surface had the equal number of Slams, Nadal would be untouchable, so he’s the GOAT” is a really strong one tbh. The only way to disagree with it is to state that all the three tennis surfaces are NOT equal in rank (which is… idk? Not sure what to think about it)

Maybe Djokovic and Federer would’ve trained differently if there were two Clay Slams or one Slam per surface. But regardless, Nadal’s case is extremely strong

- I doubt the Big 3 will be remember for their individual accolades in the long run. I think the will be remembered as “the Big 3 era”, not as the Djokovic Slam Race Victory or the Federer Greatest Peak or the Nadal RG King.

- An old Federer pushing prime Djokovic to 5 at WB14, WB19 is amazing and deserves all the plaudits it can get. It pretty much seals Federer as the grass GOAT by a clear margin. But would peak Federer really have been able to win those matches? I’m not sure. He was close to winning those matches—even having MPs—the problem maybe wasn’t physical, but mental.

And you can see that even a close-to-prime Federer in 2010-11 lost to Djokovic after having match points. So it does seem that some mental stuff was going on in their matches. And that’s why I wonder if peak Federer still would have stumbled in the WB14 and WB19 finals.

- Federer having a 48-1 streak at Wimbledon from 2003-2009 (I think it was 48-1? Can someone confirm?) is bonkers and should be talked about more. He is the Grass GOAT by a much larger margin than 8-7-7 suggests.

- Djokovic-Sinner at RG25 was one of the closest straight sets matches I’ve ever seen. The most high-level match of 2025 imo.

- Yes, Alcaraz’s Cincinnati23, Oly24, and AO25 WILL haunt him in later potential GOAT conversations if he gets to that stage

- Nadal going from making five straight WB finals to doing nothing from 2012-17 to having a great 2018-22 WB is bizarre. Nadal’s WTF record is the main counterpoint to his GOAT case and it is a bit of an unsettling one
 
Last edited:
Piratedal had the best kits of any big 3 player :D

640px-Nadal_2008_Sony_Ericsson_Open.jpg

2479203185_067fd776ab_z.jpg


emot-clint.gif
 
ForehandCross said:
Mine would be

1. Stan Wawrinka was going to beat Nadal in 4 or 5 in 2014 AO Final regardless of Nadal being healthy.

2. It will always be Big 4 for me. Murray was an integral part of the top 4 ranking from 2008 to 2017 mid. That's the peak years of Djokodal and Federer's late prime.

The big 4 as a term was never about who were going to win most slams. It was about 4 players who were constantly reaching the semis and finals of all tournaments played


3. A continuation of 2nd. Murray is an ATG who should have won 7-8 slams minimum.


4. Federer's best level ever was 2005 but it was evolved to tackle his own generation which were more of a second wave of transition to Baseline from SnV. However 2006-07 was most equipped to deal with the type of tennis that newer generation would bring.


5. Djokovic 's 2015 was not exactly as high a level as the results would have you believe, AO SF and Final was lacking , especially the SF despite being a 5 setter was tepid from both players. WB Final was a performance of a lifetime, but USO was very patchy. Early 2016 is where he hit his absolute humongous peak, similar to Nadal in mid 2008 and Federer in end of 2006 - early 2007.


6. Novak Djokovic is the best ever, from a playing level as well as being successful.
Click to expand...

4 isn't really that controversial of an opinion because 2005 was a stronger year relative to 2006, although I probably have WB 2006 - RG 2007 or RG 2006 - AO 2007 as his best 4 slam streak for performance in slams (I'm ignoring masters). Best single match performances overall probably came from 2003/2005 Wimbledon, 2004 USO, or 2003/2004 TMC though (I think they mostly exceed anything from 2006 minus the Federer-Ancic Wimbledon QF).

5 is true, he was better in 2011 at 3/4 slams. 2016 was better at the first two slams too if we ignore the Simon horrorfest.
 
aldeayeah said:
2005 Nadal was one of the strongest versions of Nadal due to basically infinite wheels and less predictable tactics (he became really set in his ways later on)
Click to expand...
Yeah 2005 Nadal on clay had that raw energy and mentality going for him - he would still go for the opponents' backhand but in general was more unpredictable - would dropshot more, utilized the normal finish more, seemed more willing to crush a FH or passing shot at times, was at PEAK speed so would pass you left and right off BOTH wings (his BH pass was quite a bit better when young), and generally had more unpredictable placement due to his shots being more unrefined. But even if he dropped it short it didn't matter cus he's gonna pass you off your approach shot like 70% of the time. He also didn't waste as much time - all in all a joy to watch.
 
Last edited:
aldeayeah said:
2005 Nadal was one of the strongest versions of Nadal due to basically infinite wheels and less predictable tactics (he became really set in his ways later on)
Click to expand...
Underrated year from him as a whole. Final in Miami, titles in MC/Rome/RG, win in Canada against Agassi, and an indoor win in Madrid against Ljubicic.
 
MHI said:
- Fed having less Masters than Nadal/Djokovic isn’t a problem. Not his fault there weren’t any on grass
Click to expand...

You can only believe this if you also believe that the slam record 'isn't a problem,' and that the only reason Nadal doesn't own the slam record by a lot is that there are 2 HC slams to 1 clay slam. You're getting into very controversial territory when you begin to pick at the uneven distribution of surfaces in the calendar.
 
2017 AO Final was not played at a high level
Nadal-Zverev 2022 RG SF was played at a mostly awful, ugly level
Andy Roddick overachieved relative to his talent level, same for Nick Kyrgios
Peaking Thiem was ATG level/worthy
Peaking Kevin Anderson was way better than people think
Karen Khachanov literally saved tennis at the 2022 US Open
Nadal would have defended his title at 2014 US Open
 
junior74 said:
The 5th set which was awesome!
Click to expand...

Fed went on a bit of a heater but even that was not an amazing set in terms of the level. It was dramatic, don't get me wrong, but I think other versions of Nadal/Federer/Djokovic would have routined either finalist.
 
ForehandCross said:
Mine would be

1. Stan Wawrinka was going to beat Nadal in 4 or 5 in 2014 AO Final regardless of Nadal being healthy.

2. It will always be Big 4 for me. Murray was an integral part of the top 4 ranking from 2008 to 2017 mid. That's the peak years of Djokodal and Federer's late prime.

The big 4 as a term was never about who were going to win most slams. It was about 4 players who were constantly reaching the semis and finals of all tournaments played


3. A continuation of 2nd. Murray is an ATG who should have won 7-8 slams minimum.


4. Federer's best level ever was 2005 but it was evolved to tackle his own generation which were more of a second wave of transition to Baseline from SnV. However 2006-07 was most equipped to deal with the type of tennis that newer generation would bring.


5. Djokovic 's 2015 was not exactly as high a level as the results would have you believe, AO SF and Final was lacking , especially the SF despite being a 5 setter was tepid from both players. WB Final was a performance of a lifetime, but USO was very patchy. Early 2016 is where he hit his absolute humongous peak, similar to Nadal in mid 2008 and Federer in end of 2006 - early 2007.


6. Novak Djokovic is the best ever, from a playing level as well as being successful.
Click to expand...
Regarding your #1

IMG-0129.gif
 
MHI said:
WB19 is amazing and deserves all the plaudits it can get. It pretty much seals Federer as the grass GOAT by a clear margin. But would peak Federer really have been able to win those matches? I’m not sure.
Click to expand...

See I wanna contradict this but it's in keeping with the spirit of the thread...so, well-done, very good example and I will NOT PM you with spiritually cleansing Peak-Fed-on-grass matches, no sir, no exorcisms will be done around these parts.
 
weakera said:
Fed went on a bit of a heater but even that was not an amazing set in terms of the level. It was dramatic, don't get me wrong, but I think other versions of Nadal/Federer/Djokovic would have routined either finalist.
Click to expand...

The very best version of either of Big3 would have beaten every subpar version of Big3.

Rafa at RG is the exception to the rule.
 
Another one: I think Zverev would likely have won the 2022 RG semi if he hadn't broken his ankle.

The conditions were just freakishly slow and damp, I never saw Nadal sweat so much.

It would become a "who physically blinks first" kind of match, and I have a hard time believing that a 36-year old, slow legs Rafa on a medicated foot would be the survivor.
 
Seeing the negativity around I will just raise a few mostly positive opinions about the modern era and the big 3.

1. Federer's game is not as "classic" as people think, especially his forehand. His fast court BH TS was actually quite good despite it being memed to oblivion.

2. Nadal isn't some inflexible brute people think he is - he has decent court sense and improv skills, as evidenced by his court position when his opponent is about to hit an approach - he seems to always guess right and be in the right place. He's also pretty adept at digging out those low backhand drop volleys and hitting those high BH smashes behind the back. People criticize him for being unwilling to change his top-spin oriented defensive game especially on hard, but I feel he was not comfortable being more aggressive both in terms of technique and in terms of running a high-risk game, so he resorted to what works best for him. If he continues to play like how he played against Hewitt at the 2004 and 2005 AOs in 2006-08 I feel like his hard court dawn might arrive EVEN later. Sure, he might have switched up his aggression as a later-career compensation too late, but at first I feel like it definitely worked for him.

3. Djokovic plays a deceptively simple and defensive game - I still classify him as an aggressive baseliner. Because he hits flatter than the rest of the big 3 and probably the rest of tour on average, it makes his game look less exciting, but remember because he hits the ball flat and early he actually often times than not hits more mph than his opponent, notably Alcaraz who people perceive to be as a hard hitter. He also is perhaps the best at changing directions to break usual patterns, often hitting DTL or behind them and making his opponents uncomfortable. It need not be a point-ending shot, but he keeps piling up the pressure with his early, well-placed and decently paced hitting, so it eventually just completely smothers the opponent. He definitely is more proactive than reactive even when he doesn't hit as much winners as some of his aggressive colleagues. However, because of his lack of shot action (spin), fewer crazy defence to attack winners like Nadal, or more "standard" technique (double-bend FH 2HBH) he gets labeled a boring defensive baseliner.

4. Modern tennis came to be and S n V was phased out due to surfaces and strings and racquets for sure - but more focus should be placed on coaching analytics and the modern technique too. The modern open-stance angular-momentum technique (of course accompanied by the racquets) made it extremely easy to generate spin and pace when on the run, and the coaching analytics based on that must have shifted the balance in favour of baselining. It seems weird to not crunch the numbers like they do in baseball or basketball and come up with the highest-percentage strategy when faced with the lucrative business of raising a billion-dollar player.
 
Last edited:
Clay lover said:
Seeing the negativity around I will just raise a few mostly positive opinions about the modern era and the big 3.

1. Federer's game is not as "classic" as people think, especially his forehand. His fast court BH TS was actually quite good despite it being memes to oblivion.

2. Nadal isn't some inflexible brute people think he is - he has decent court sense and improv skills, as evidenced by his court position when his opponent is about to hit an approach - he seems to always guess right and be in the right place. He's also pretty adept at digging out those low backhand drop volleys and hitting those high BH smashes behind the back. People criticize him for being unwilling to change his top-spin oriented defensive game especially on hard, but I feel he was not comfortable being more aggressive both in terms of technique and in terms of running a high-risk game, so he resorted to what works best for him. If he continues to play like how he played against Hewitt at the 2004 and 2005 AOs in 2006-08 I feel like his hard court dawn might arrive EVEN later. Sure, he might have switched up his aggression as a later-career compensation too late, but at first I feel like it definitely worked for him.

3. Djokovic plays a deceptively simple and defensive game - I still classify him as an aggressive baseliner. Because he hits flatter than the rest of the big 3 and probably the rest of tour on average, it makes his game look less exciting, but remember because he hits the ball flat and early he actually often times or not hits more mph than his opponent, notably Alcaraz who people perceive to be as a hard hitter. He also is perhaps the best at changing directions to break usual patterns, often hitting DTL or behind them and making his opponents uncomfortable. It need not be a point-ending shot, but he keeps piling up the pressure with his early, well-placed and decently paced hitting, so it eventually just completely smothers the opponent. He definitely is more proactive than reactive even when he doesn't hit as much winners as some of his aggressive colleagues. However, because of his lack of shot action (spin), fewer crazy defence to attack winners like Nadal, or more "standard" technique (double-bend FH 2HBH) he gets labeled a boring defensive baseliner.

4. Modern tennis came to be and S n V was phased out due to surfaces and strings and racquets for sure - but more focus should be placed on coaching analytics and the modern technique too. The modern technique open-stance angular-momentum technique (of course accompanied by the racquets) made it extremely easy to generate spin and pace when on the run, and the coaching analytics based on that must have shifted the balance in favour of baselining. It seems weird to not crunch the numbers like they do in baseball or basketball and come up with the highest-percentage strategy when faced with the lucrative business of raising a billion-dollar player.
Click to expand...


Best one yet.
 
Clay lover said:
Seeing the negativity around I will just raise a few mostly positive opinions about the modern era and the big 3.

1. Federer's game is not as "classic" as people think, especially his forehand. His fast court BH TS was actually quite good despite it being memed to oblivion.

2. Nadal isn't some inflexible brute people think he is - he has decent court sense and improv skills, as evidenced by his court position when his opponent is about to hit an approach - he seems to always guess right and be in the right place. He's also pretty adept at digging out those low backhand drop volleys and hitting those high BH smashes behind the back. People criticize him for being unwilling to change his top-spin oriented defensive game especially on hard, but I feel he was not comfortable being more aggressive both in terms of technique and in terms of running a high-risk game, so he resorted to what works best for him. If he continues to play like how he played against Hewitt at the 2004 and 2005 AOs in 2006-08 I feel like his hard court dawn might arrive EVEN later. Sure, he might have switched up his aggression as a later-career compensation too late, but at first I feel like it definitely worked for him.

3. Djokovic plays a deceptively simple and defensive game - I still classify him as an aggressive baseliner. Because he hits flatter than the rest of the big 3 and probably the rest of tour on average, it makes his game look less exciting, but remember because he hits the ball flat and early he actually often times or not hits more mph than his opponent, notably Alcaraz who people perceive to be as a hard hitter. He also is perhaps the best at changing directions to break usual patterns, often hitting DTL or behind them and making his opponents uncomfortable. It need not be a point-ending shot, but he keeps piling up the pressure with his early, well-placed and decently paced hitting, so it eventually just completely smothers the opponent. He definitely is more proactive than reactive even when he doesn't hit as much winners as some of his aggressive colleagues. However, because of his lack of shot action (spin), fewer crazy defence to attack winners like Nadal, or more "standard" technique (double-bend FH 2HBH) he gets labeled a boring defensive baseliner.

4. Modern tennis came to be and S n V was phased out due to surfaces and strings and racquets for sure - but more focus should be placed on coaching analytics and the modern technique too. The modern open-stance angular-momentum technique (of course accompanied by the racquets) made it extremely easy to generate spin and pace when on the run, and the coaching analytics based on that must have shifted the balance in favour of baselining. It seems weird to not crunch the numbers like they do in baseball or basketball and come up with the highest-percentage strategy when faced with the lucrative business of raising a billion-dollar player.
Click to expand...

Awesome post but I agree with too much of it. Got me thinking I should change my privacy settings. ;)
 
Clay lover said:
3. Djokovic plays a deceptively simple and defensive game - I still classify him as an aggressive baseliner. Because he hits flatter than the rest of the big 3 and probably the rest of tour on average, it makes his game look less exciting, but remember because he hits the ball flat and early he actually often times or not hits more mph than his opponent, notably Alcaraz who people perceive to be as a hard hitter. He also is perhaps the best at changing directions to break usual patterns, often hitting DTL or behind them and making his opponents uncomfortable. It need not be a point-ending shot, but he keeps piling up the pressure with his early, well-placed and decently paced hitting, so it eventually just completely smothers the opponent. He definitely is more proactive than reactive even when he doesn't hit as much winners as some of his aggressive colleagues. However, because of his lack of shot action (spin), fewer crazy defence to attack winners like Nadal, or more "standard" technique (double-bend FH 2HBH) he gets labeled a boring defensive baseliner.
Click to expand...
Djokovic's (not so) secret superpower is clean, precise hitting with a very heavy (for modern standards) stick. This gives him unparalleled counterpunching, redirection, placement and pong-style defense without giving up ground.

His main weakness (relative to his top tier peers) is pace generation. Especially in the later stages of his career, where for several seasons you could see him struggle to bring out his heavy clay forehand (which is elite when he manages to actually bring it to the table)

Murray shared some of his strengths and the same weakness, which was part of what made their matchup hard to watch at times - both players are tactically encouraged to not pull the trigger.
 
  1. 2001 Agassi beats any of the big 3’s best versions at the USO (to say nothing of the 90s versions)
  2. Murray would have gone 5 minimum with Peak Djoker at Wimbledon in 2015 and then we would have said “this is not peak Djoker”
  3. Nadal wins Wimbledon 2022 without the ab injury
  4. AO 17 and RG 22 are still weak tier slams even though the guys involved crawled through broken glass and got epic wins to get the titles. Both winners would still have had their clocks cleaned by the equivalent winners from 3 years earlier
  5. Meddy gets more credit in the post 2016 era because Nadal choked away a bunch of easy overheads to beat him in 3 or 4 in 2019 (granted we got an entertaining match as a result) and Djoker had his breakdown in 2021 (he still only lost the first 2 sets 6-4 and Med had to hit freak BHs down BP to save them). If Djoker had beaten Meddy in 2021, the narrative around a Nadal comeback win at AO 2022 would also have changed
 
- People overstate the importance of depth in tennis, especially in an era where surface and style convergence already hurts parity. The strength of most eras are 80-90% decided by how good 3 to 5 guys are. The rest is window dressing. Depth matters more when the tour is sufficiently varied (eg, the ‘90s). “The average player from ranks 200-300 is WAY better today” thus misses the mark.

- A non-hipster argument can be made for Borg as GOAT. And we are going to start a dialogue.

- Outside of the serve and forehand, Murray is almost the equal of TB3. Which goes to show just how little tallying attributes, ESPN-style, matters. Because he’s nowhere close to them in the end.

- Davydenko probably did fix those matches, and it hurts.

- Lendl is closer to Sampras than he is to Agassi.

- Jimmy Connors, 1974: Certified Vulture.

- ‘08 RG SF third set is the highest quality Djokodal set on clay.

- The drop shot serve isn’t a joke tactic, people just don’t do it for the same reason NFL coaches don’t risk it on every 4th down despite it being the percentage play. You can and should get someone thinking twice about standing 15 feet behind the baseline. **** decorum when you’ve got guys in the stands to return serve on grass.

- John McEnroe hasn’t said a single insightful thing about tennis in this century. I mean that.

- Delayed grunts: automatic hindrance. Might as well allow the players to go full Ric Flair if that goes unpunished.

- Federer’s struggles in the ‘05 US Open final are mostly an example of “random things happening.” We needn’t overthink it.

- PETE’s YE#1’s mean nothing in a direct comparison with TB3. He’s had like 6 YE#1 calibre years, they’ve all had closer to 10-12.

- The 2009 US Open final never took place.
 
Last edited:
Serve and volley can still be very effective tactics at Wimbledon, and if a player with Pete's or Becker's talent and skills appears and is trained (although this is a big if, since there aren't many coaches or academies that still teach S&V as a predominant style) to embrace this approach, he'll be a multiple time champion.
Most recent examples are Tommy Haas (who beat Cilic and Djokovic), who reached the SF and could've won the whole thing (good record against Stifler) if it wasn't for Roger, and Muller, who reached the QF and was gassed, otherwise I think he would've beaten Cilic. And these players are far from the Sampras/Boris caliber.

Serve, especially a huge one, is a lethal weapon on grass (still the surface that plays fastest) and challenges even the best returners (Kevin Anderson vs best version of Novak at Wimbledon, for example) and a good/sharp/penetrating volleys are hard to chase on green stuff (bounce/surface speed) if you have a competent net player.
 
jl809 said:
  1. 2001 Agassi beats any of the big 3’s best versions at the USO (to say nothing of the 90s versions)
  2. Murray would have gone 5 minimum with Peak Djoker at Wimbledon in 2015 and then we would have said “this is not peak Djoker”
  3. Nadal wins Wimbledon 2022 without the ab injury
  4. AO 17 and RG 22 are still weak tier slams even though the guys involved crawled through broken glass and got epic wins to get the titles. Both winners would still have had their clocks cleaned by the equivalent winners from 3 years earlier
  5. Meddy gets more credit in the post 2016 era because Nadal choked away a bunch of easy overheads to beat him in 3 or 4 in 2019 (granted we got an entertaining match as a result) and Djoker had his breakdown in 2021 (he still only lost the first 2 sets 6-4 and Med had to hit freak BHs down BP to save them). If Djoker had beaten Meddy in 2021, the narrative around a Nadal comeback win at AO 2022 would also have changed
Click to expand...
I like this one. :) Always good to see a legend from the past getting credits the in the Big-3 centric discourse.
 
- Stan and Murray would’ve been slamless during Fed’s prime. Djokovic losing multiple slam matches to each of them is a bit of a stain. One loss against each is ok, but multiple is not.

- Becker’s contribution as Djokovic’s coach wasn’t as big as people believe. The competition weakening after 2013 played a bigger role, IMO. I think Djokovic would’ve won those same majors even without Becker as a coach. He was initially hired in order to help him overcome Nadal which was rendered moot after Nadal entered his slump. If Becker was such a good coach, why didn’t he help Djokovic overcome Stan, by far his toughest opponent in 2014-2016?

- No version of Fed beats Djokodal on the 2011-2014 AO surface
 
MHI said:
We need to have advantage set back for GS Finals rather than 10-point tiebreaks.

A 10-point tiebreak will never be as iconic. 16-14, 10-8, 9-7 WB, 9-7 RG, 13-12 are all iconic results most of us can identify just from the game scoreline.

The 13-12 and RG25 are remembered NOT for the exceedingly one-sided tiebreak (although, as an Alcaraz fan, the 8-0 was epic), but for the drama before at 8-7 and 11-11 and the RG25 final from 5-4 onwards.

The drama of trying to break and hold is far more. And tiebreaks, which are scored point by point, are rarely as close in the ultimate score (WB19 7-3, RG25 10-2).

Other stuff:

- Novak’s NCYGS isn’t any better than Federer’s WB-RG runs where he won 3 Slams and lost RG to Rafa. The only difference is in 2016, Nadal didn’t play RG

- It is absurd that tennis, a sport with three surfaces, plays 3 out of the 5 biggest annual tournaments on the same surface. This must change

- Fed having less Masters than Nadal/Djokovic isn’t a problem. Not his fault there weren’t any on grass

- The argument that “if there were two clay Slams, or if each surface had the equal number of Slams, Nadal would be untouchable, so he’s the GOAT” is a really strong one tbh. The only way to disagree with it is to state that all the three tennis surfaces are NOT equal in rank (which is… idk? Not sure what to think about it)

Maybe Djokovic and Federer would’ve trained differently if there were two Clay Slams or one Slam per surface. But regardless, Nadal’s case is extremely strong

- I doubt the Big 3 will be remember for their individual accolades in the long run. I think the will be remembered as “the Big 3 era”, not as the Djokovic Slam Race Victory or the Federer Greatest Peak or the Nadal RG King.

- An old Federer pushing prime Djokovic to 5 at WB14, WB19 is amazing and deserves all the plaudits it can get. It pretty much seals Federer as the grass GOAT by a clear margin. But would peak Federer really have been able to win those matches? I’m not sure. He was close to winning those matches—even having MPs—the problem maybe wasn’t physical, but mental.

And you can see that even a close-to-prime Federer in 2010-11 lost to Djokovic after having match points. So it does seem that some mental stuff was going on in their matches. And that’s why I wonder if peak Federer still would have stumbled in the WB14 and WB19 finals.

- Federer having a 48-1 streak at Wimbledon from 2003-2009 (I think it was 48-1? Can someone confirm?) is bonkers and should be talked about more. He is the Grass GOAT by a much larger margin than 8-7-7 suggests.

- Djokovic-Sinner at RG25 was one of the closest straight sets matches I’ve ever seen. The most high-level match of 2025 imo.

- Yes, Alcaraz’s Cincinnati23, Oly24, and AO25 WILL haunt him in later potential GOAT conversations if he gets to that stage

- Nadal going from making five straight WB finals to doing nothing from 2012-17 to having a great 2018-22 WB is bizarre. Nadal’s WTF record is the main counterpoint to his GOAT case and it is a bit of an unsettling one
Click to expand...
If you make Federer younger, Djokovic loses that mental edge. Because the latter is derived from his physical edge.

Even in 2011, Djokovic was 24 and Fed 30. It’s still a significant edge in physicality since a 24 year old is much closer to his physical best than a 30 year old
 
ForehandCross said:
Mine would be

1. Stan Wawrinka was going to beat Nadal in 4 or 5 in 2014 AO Final regardless of Nadal being healthy.

2. It will always be Big 4 for me. Murray was an integral part of the top 4 ranking from 2008 to 2017 mid. That's the peak years of Djokodal and Federer's late prime.

The big 4 as a term was never about who were going to win most slams. It was about 4 players who were constantly reaching the semis and finals of all tournaments played


3. A continuation of 2nd. Murray is an ATG who should have won 7-8 slams minimum.


4. Federer's best level ever was 2005 but it was evolved to tackle his own generation which were more of a second wave of transition to Baseline from SnV. However 2006-07 was most equipped to deal with the type of tennis that newer generation would bring.


5. Djokovic 's 2015 was not exactly as high a level as the results would have you believe, AO SF and Final was lacking , especially the SF despite being a 5 setter was tepid from both players. WB Final was a performance of a lifetime, but USO was very patchy. Early 2016 is where he hit his absolute humongous peak, similar to Nadal in mid 2008 and Federer in end of 2006 - early 2007.


6. Novak Djokovic is the best ever, from a playing level as well as being successful.
Click to expand...

Let's see, some random thoughts:

1. Novak has actually one of the best FHs of all time, it's just a bit overshadowed by his GOAT 2HBH. To add to the point, the main reason behind his 2011 dominance is not the gluten free whatever, it's the improvements he made in regards to his FH (it was basically mentioned by Fred at the time, like before you could go to his FH, can't do that anymore).

2. Peak Sampras was one of the best returners ever on grass when he was fully dialed-in, he just really didn't get going until say slam QF which is why the statz! guys don't get it.

3. 2012 AO Fedal SF is one of the most overrated matches of all time. Fed was past his prime on slower surfaces and a step slower, it was a NID match because he didn't possess the physicality anymore to hang with Nadovic on slower surfaces. His vaunted winning streak going into the match was built almost entirely indoors.

4. Lendl is on the same level of the big 3 + Pete, he just had the toughest competition of any ATG and of course didn't have longevity today's ATGs enjoy.

5. Fed's best shot is his slice, his FH was great at his peak but it was too dependent on immaculate footwork which is why it declined faster than his rival's FHs.

6. Borg has one of the best GOAT claims despite his short career due to how uniquely he was dominant on two surfaces which were complete polar opposites at the time. He was even dominant on carpet, truly the best all-surface player that ever was.

7. Nadal's GOAT claim is massively hurt by his significant vulnerability when the ball stays low and his inability too string dominant seasons. Slam count is not enough to offset that.

8. Murray's peak level of play is overrated despite his ATG consistency.

9. Sinner and Alcaraz are lucky they're not facing peak Fed on grass.
 
- Carl’s record against old Djoker is a stain on his resume, something that has only been solidified with Sinner beating Djoker comfortably in recent times

- Pete’s mental strength isn’t greater than Fed’s. It just looks that way because he was the only alpha in his time
 
mike danny said:
- Stan and Murray would’ve been slamless during Fed’s prime. Djokovic losing multiple slam matches to each of them is a bit of a stain. One loss against each is ok, but multiple is not.

- Becker’s contribution as Djokovic’s coach wasn’t as big as people believe. The competition weakening after 2013 played a bigger role, IMO. I think Djokovic would’ve won those same majors even without Becker as a coach. He was initially hired in order to help him overcome Nadal which was rendered moot after Nadal entered his slump. If Becker was such a good coach, why didn’t he help Djokovic overcome Stan, by far his toughest opponent in 2014-2016?

- No version of Fed beats Djokodal on the 2011-2014 AO surface
Click to expand...

In general Djokovic's extreme vulnerability in piling up slam finals losses against various non-Fedal opponents no less is definitely a stain, as much as people would try to turn it into a LeBron'esque, "it's better to make the finals than loser in an earlier round" argument, it doesn't work the same way in a 1v1 sport.
 
weakera said:
In general Djokovic's extreme vulnerability in piling up slam finals losses against various non-Fedal opponents no less is definitely a stain, as much as people would try to turn it into a LeBron'esque, "it's better to make the finals than loser in an earlier round" argument, it doesn't work the same way in a 1v1 sport.
Click to expand...
In general I agree that it’s better to reach the final than to not reach it. But not when the final is winnable.
 
ForehandCross said:
Mine would be

1. Stan Wawrinka was going to beat Nadal in 4 or 5 in 2014 AO Final regardless of Nadal being healthy.

2. It will always be Big 4 for me. Murray was an integral part of the top 4 ranking from 2008 to 2017 mid. That's the peak years of Djokodal and Federer's late prime.

The big 4 as a term was never about who were going to win most slams. It was about 4 players who were constantly reaching the semis and finals of all tournaments played


3. A continuation of 2nd. Murray is an ATG who should have won 7-8 slams minimum.


4. Federer's best level ever was 2005 but it was evolved to tackle his own generation which were more of a second wave of transition to Baseline from SnV. However 2006-07 was most equipped to deal with the type of tennis that newer generation would bring.


5. Djokovic 's 2015 was not exactly as high a level as the results would have you believe, AO SF and Final was lacking , especially the SF despite being a 5 setter was tepid from both players. WB Final was a performance of a lifetime, but USO was very patchy. Early 2016 is where he hit his absolute humongous peak, similar to Nadal in mid 2008 and Federer in end of 2006 - early 2007.


6. Novak Djokovic is the best ever, from a playing level as well as being successful.
Click to expand...
I was going to scroll by, as I generally avoid stuff like "bold predictions" and even "unpopular predictions" as they seem so forced. I'd rather predictions and opinions just flow organically. That said, I've (in spite of this) enjoyed this thread.

Not sure I have my own...maybe later...but as to yours.

1. We'll never know. But although I was rooting for Rafa, injuries are obviously a part of the game, and Stan was very deserving.

2. At the time, there was a reason for "Big 4", although in retrospect, it seems like an overreach.

3. I'm not a fan of should-haves except in unique situations. I will agree that Murray's career was great and I'm not a fan of rigid thresholds for nebulous terms like "ATG". Drawing lines between ATGs and everyone else has justified a lot of flimsy arguments on TTW.

4. No strong opinion here.

5. Could be, although I think you underrate his 2015 USO -- the final, anyway. He stayed so cool under pressure versus a hot, SABR'-equipped Fed and the raucous crowd and played a great, clinical match. I thought he was the better player by a good margin.

6. I lean to agreement. Detractors find ways to detract. Even if I credit Fed with the best-ever 4-5 year run and Rafa with possibly the highest overall peak, both are debatable and Novak's best can hang with anyone's, with his longevity of greatness almost unfathomsble.
 
TheFifthSet said:
See I wanna contradict this but it's in keeping with the spirit of the thread...so, well-done, very good example and I will NOT PM you with spiritually cleansing Peak-Fed-on-grass matches, no sir, no exorcisms will be done around these parts.
Click to expand...
Hahah, my thinking is that USO10, 11 and WB14, 19 show that maybe in these types of GS matches between Fed and Novak, the skill level didn’t decide the game. It was another factor (mental) which wouldn’t have changed…
 
mike danny said:
In general I agree that it’s better to reach the final than to not reach it. But not when the final is winnable.
Click to expand...

It all depends on the context. So let's take Djokovic's US Open Final loss vs. Wawrinka. That is one of the weakest "Finals" results you can possibly imagine. And yet Djokovic fans want to crown him for that achievement, along with his other slam finals losses.
 
weakera said:
You can only believe this if you also believe that the slam record 'isn't a problem,' and that the only reason Nadal doesn't own the slam record by a lot is that there are 2 HC slams to 1 clay slam. You're getting into very controversial territory when you begin to pick at the uneven distribution of surfaces in the calendar.
Click to expand...
It’s not controversial when 25% of the slam surfaces isn’t represented at the master level while clay is fairly or slightly overrepresented with 33% of the masters and hc overrepresented with 66% of the masters.
 
Im(moral) Winner said:
It’s not controversial when 25% of the slam surfaces isn’t represented at the master level while clay is fairly or slightly overrepresented with 33% of the masters and hc overrepresented with 66% of the masters.
Click to expand...

This isn't a zero sum game here, the same logic can apply to both, even if the Masters breakdown features a more drastic skew. They are both cases of scheduling favoring players on some surfaces more than others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rafa4LifeEver
  • Poll Poll
unpopular opinion :- It was not a choke
2
Replies
65
Views
4K
Rafa4LifeEver
Rafa4LifeEver
M
  • Poll Poll
Unpopular Opinion
Replies
20
Views
932
MHI
M
clout
Is this an unpopular opinion?
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
The Blond Blur
The Blond Blur
mike danny
My opinion on Federer
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
burn1986
burn1986
D
Can we agree now that Nadal is way past his prime?
5 6 7
Replies
308
Views
29K
mightyrick
mightyrick
Back
Top