What player beat his two main rivals in all Slams?

[TennisGrandpA]

Quality of tennis did not decline, it is the excuse fans use to blow up someone's successes.
2006 RF would not dominate Sinner or Carlos today like he did Baghdadis, Roddick and company back then....and still could not touch Rafa at the FO.

Their argument is simple bro Fed destroying non ATG in his peak = he would have beaten prime goat tier players even though there’s no evidence of it , even old second tier ATG Agassi could go toe to toe. In their opinion prime FC Barcelona beating arsenal 6-0 means they would have beaten prime Bayern Munich with ease.

 

[junkieballer]

One of the most interesting stats amongst the big 3 is this one:

Big 3 wins against each other at their pet Slams:

Federer
vs ND at AO - 1
vs RN at RG - 0

Nadal
vs ND at AO - 0
vs RF at Wimbledon - 1

Djokovic
vs RN at RG - 2
vs RF at Wimbledon - 3

This is the reason when they were all tied at 20, Sampras just flat out called Djokovic the GOAT. lol

This is huge.

Being hardcourt GOAT + winning 7 Wimbledon beating 3 times the grass GOAT + winning 3 French Open beating 2 times the clay GOAT

 

[Jonas78]

Its funny.

When Federer beat Agassi 8 times in a row when Agassi was 33-35, Agassi was old and washed out.

When Nole beat Federer when Fed was 33-35 its a really big thing beating other ATGs.

 

[Sudacafan]

I actually think this is the worst thing you can do to them, Federer is their obsession more than Djokovic.

Yeah, they would maybe take that as an insult.

 

[TennisGrandpA]

Fedal fans are already in the Former Pro forum, only Djokovic fans want to pull them back here.

There are millions of hypothetical threads by Fed fans lol

 

[Razer]

Quality of tennis did not decline, it is the excuse fans use to blow up someone's successes.
2006 RF would not dominate Sinner or Carlos today like he did Baghdadis, Roddick and company back then....and still could not touch Rafa at the FO.

2006 RF won't dominate Alcaraz and Sinner in the same way but 25 year old Federer would beat 25 yr old Sinner and 23 year old Alcaraz like a drum

2006 is 19 years before 2025, tennis has evolved and so would Federer too if you put him in a proper baseline era with his bigger racquet from his teen years itself.

Federer was exceptionally great in his peak years, this cannot be disputed. Nobody since him as been that good.

 

[NoleFam]

This is huge.

Being hardcourt GOAT + winning 7 Wimbledon beating 3 times the grass GOAT + winning 3 French Open beating 2 times the clay GOAT

Well it's just a feather in Djokovic's cap. I think more than anything, he only allowed them one win against him in his haven (AO) and the only win was when he was 19 years old. I think that's more huge than anything.

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

Another manufactured thread by the big 3 fans deliberately making these threads because the players are not buying this nonsense.

 

[Razer]

Sure, but which player beat a younger ATG rival at all 4 slams (minimum 10 slams)?

Only Federer

Which ATG in 30s beat a 5 years younger ATG in a grand slam final ? ... Only Federer, nobody else.

 

[junkieballer]

Well it's just a feather in Djokovic's cap. I think more than anything, he only allowed them one win against him in his haven (AO) and the only win was when he was 19 years old. I think that's more huge than anything.

And It was R16.

QF/SF/F:

Djokovic wins vs Fedal at their best Slams --> 5
Fedal wins vs Djokovic at his best Slam --> 0

5 > 0

 

[Jonas78]

Yeah, they would maybe take that as an insult.

These guys are a lot more obsessed with mocking Federer than celebrating Nole, so that would be very insulting yes.

Remember - even these fans deep inside know that Federer is what its all about . What fun is it to beat Medvedev, Anderson or Tsitsipas?

Its all about Federer.

 

[dr325i]

Its funny.

When Federer beat Agassi 8 times in a row when Agassi was 33-35, Agassi was old and washed out.

When Nole beat Federer when Fed was 33-35 its a really big thing beating other ATGs.

You really don't see the difference between the 34yo Federer and 34yo Agassi??
Maybe you should read Andre's book first?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Well it's just a feather in Djokovic's cap. I think more than anything, he only allowed them one win against him in his haven (AO) and the only win was when he was 19 years old. I think that's more huge than anything.

Nadal is 14-2 at FO against the other two. Novak is 6-1 at AO against the other two. Relatively speaking I see not much difference. Novak didn’t face them at 2017/18 AO while Nadal did face Novak in 2015.

 

[dr325i]

2006 RF won't dominate Alcaraz and Sinner in the same way but 25 year old Federer would beat 25 yr old Sinner and 23 year old Alcaraz like a drum

2006 is 19 years before 2025, tennis has evolved and so would Federer too if you put him in a proper baseline era with his bigger racquet from his teen years itself.

Federer was exceptionally great in his peak years, this cannot be disputed. Nobody since him as been that good.

AGAIN, this is what you say, and former tennis players, experts, people that actually played at that level disagree with you.
But you keep drumming the same story...reminds me of all fantasies the orange pedo keeps repeating and 50% of the country believes...

 

[Jonas78]

You really don't see the difference between the 34yo Federer and 34yo Agassi??
Maybe you should read Andre's book first?

Its way worse not seeing the difference between 25y old Federer and 35y old Federer.

When they can see this difference, ill think about seeing the difference on 34y old Fed and 34y old Agassi

 

[zakopinjo]

These guys are a lot more obsessed with mocking Federer than celebrating Nole, so that would be very insulting yes.

Remember - even these fans deep inside know that Federer is what its all about . What fun is it to beat Medvedev, Anderson or Tsitsipas?

Its all about Federer.

In the case of Novak and his fans, Federer only connects with 40:15.

 

[dr325i]

Its way worse not seeing the difference between 25y old Federer and 35y old Federer.

When they can see this difference, ill think about seeing the difference on 34y old Fed and 34y old Agassi

hey, I guess the 31yo Federer claiming he's playing the best tennis of his career (in 2012) was just the marketing story and he even did not realize that he is clueless, correct?

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal is 14-2 at FO against the other two. Novak is 6-1 at AO against the other two. Relatively speaking I see not much difference. Novak didn’t face them at 2017/18 AO while Nadal did face Novak in 2015.

So basically they need the worse versions of him to get a win? 2015 was the worse version of Nadal so I will concede that but Djokovic still got him again in 2021 when he was actually in decent form. Some of it is circumstantial when you consider 2009 AO when Fedal were both better or 2018 (2017 Djokovic probably would beaten at least one of them if he could have gotten past Istomin), but it is still huge bragging rights against his rivals that he won the AO 10 times, and went 6-0 against them in that timeframe.

 

[Jonas78]

hey, I guess the 31yo Federer claiming he's playing the best tennis of his career (in 2012) was just the marketing story and he even did not realize that he is clueless, correct?

I expected an answer like that.

If you think Federer played the tennis of his life from 2014-2016, thats fine, i dont agree, and we just have to agree to disagree.

As i ususally say; then he is the only player in history to win the least when he played the best lol

 

[Razer]

I expected an answer like that.

If you think Federer played the tennis of his life from 2014-2016, thats fine, i dont agree, and we just have to agree to disagree.

As i ususally say; then he is the only player in history to win the least when he played the best lol

Normally when we look into the mirror daily then we wont be able say if we are losing weight or gaining weight

but people who see us after a month will know if we look fat or thin etc

Tennis is also operating on the same lines, Federer cannot know if he is better in 2015 or 2012 or in 2005, but the audience who watch him will know better than Federer himself. Nadal himself declined so much that when he got whopped in 2017 by Federer then he is only factoring in the improvement Federer made relative to Nadal but he does not factor in his own decline or Federer's decline, but we audience can see things these players cannot about themselves.

 

[Jonas78]

Normally when we look into the mirror daily then we wont be able say if we are losing weight or gaining weight

but people who see us after a month will know if we look fat or thin etc

Tennis is also operating on the same lines, Federer cannot know if he is better in 2015 or 2012 or in 2005, but the audience who watch him will know better than Federer himself. Nadal himself declined so much that when he got whopped in 2017 by Federer then he is only factoring in the improvement Federer made relative to Nadal but he does not factor in his own decline or Federer's decline, but we audience can see things these players cannot about themselves.

Has a player ever played better tennis at 35 than 25? I dont believe that for a second.

People should take a look at ATP top 20 and see how many players are 30+. Djokovic is the only one, but i guess his fans will say he isnt peak anymore...

 

[Razer]

Has a player ever played better tennis at 35 than 25? I dont believe that for a second.

People should take a look at ATP top 20 and see how many players are 30+.

I dont think anyone even played better at 30 than 25, let alone 35.

 

[TennisGrandpA]

Only Federer

Which ATG in 30s beat a 5 years younger ATG in a grand slam final ? ... Only Federer, nobody else.

Fair enough when he couldn’t beat a prime ATG in his peak then it’s too much of a task to beat in his off prime

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Personality-wise Novak is my favorite among the big three. He speaks his mind and is not afraid to go into controversies, whereas Fedal's public statements are completely useless as it is just parroting what their PR managers tell them. Nadal at least went a little away from the woke-standard when he schooled this female reporter on equal pay, Federer completely plays into his "gentleman" image and even said Serena was the greatest player male or female after a stupid reporter asked him to clarify. You can completely ignore what he says in public, only Murray is worse.

I liked McEnroe not backing down or apologizing when he was asked to apologize about the whole Serena vs male players thing.

Also, credit to Serena for saying that Murray would beat her with ease and it was a completely different level and not possible to compete.

 

[Jonas78]

I dont think anyone even played better at 30 than 25, let alone 35.

Yup.

You have to resolve to extreme cherry picking to try to disprove obvious stats. As ive posted several times now, this is really all the stats you need:

 

[Razer]

Fair enough when he couldn’t beat a prime ATG in his peak then it’s too much of a task to beat in his off prime

It is as good as defeating a prime peak ATG because Fed is even more declined than Nadal

 

[dr325i]

I expected an answer like that.

If you think Federer played the tennis of his life from 2014-2016, thats fine, i dont agree, and we just have to agree to disagree.

As i ususally say; then he is the only player in history to win the least when he played the best lol

Again - HE said that, not me!
Do I think he played his best tennis during his mature years? Yes and no.
Obviously, his movement was not on par with his peak years but the easiness of his movement and his anticipation and experience vastly compensated for that. His FH was not as potent as earlier years, but again, not tremendously off. Now, his BH was considerably better later on than in the past, his slices too, his serve evolved in arguably the best serve on tour in later stages. His net game was MUCH more effective in the later stages of his career not only because it shortened the points but also because in that era, there were not many players that knew how to handle him on the net.

As for your last comment - that describes the whole RF “dominance” - it was easy to dominate Hewitt, Baghdadis, Phillapousis, Roddick, sidetracked Safin, very young ND, very old and crippled AA, Gonzales, but not fully developed ND, Murray, streaky Delpo, wawrinka, Tsonga and solid Nadal (when healthy).
By the way, RF losses during that 2012 season were mainly to people I listed above, when he had true, solid competition.
In fact, he came back SIX years later and won another slam!

 

[jackson vile]

Such a perfect record of destroying the best of the best to become GOAT

 

[zakopinjo]

Yup.

You have to resolve to extreme cherry picking to try to disprove obvious stats. As ive posted several times now, this is really all the stats you need:

Set it only for the 21st century, it doesn't make much sense to set it for the entire Open era when players in the first half of the Open era retired around 30 years old and today they retire at 40 years old.

 

[Jonas78]

Set it only for the 21st century, it doesn't make much sense to set it for the entire Open era when players in the first half of the Open era retired around 30 years old and today they retire at 40 years old.

Back to cherry picking. And for example, Connors played until he was 40, but he was stopped by younger ATGs. Agassi played until 35, but was stopped by younger ATGs.

In fact, its way more likely that the weak 90s players was the anomaly. If things have changed, why are we back to normal? There are no players older than 30y in top20 except Djokovic, and the slam winners are 22 and 24. Every masters title this year was won by players <30y.

90s gen is the first gen unable to stop older ATGs. Until we see what happens the next 10-15 years, absolutely nothing supports a change.

 

[zakopinjo]

Back to cherry picking. And for example, Connors played until he was 40.

In fact, its way more likely that the weak 90s players was the anomaly. If things have changed, why are we back to normal? There are no players older than 30y in top20 except Djokovic, and the slam winners are 22 and 24. Every masters title this year was won by players <30y.

Until we see what happens the next 10-15 years, absolutely nothing supports a change.

Connors is an exception.
Players used to win slams at the age of 17, today it is impossible.
Tennis has changed, players mature later and play tennis longer, it has nothing to do with the tennis of the 20th century.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Again - HE said that, not me!
Do I think he played his best tennis during his mature years? Yes and no.
Obviously, his movement was not on par with his peak years but the easiness of his movement and his anticipation and experience vastly compensated for that. His FH was not as potent as earlier years, but again, not tremendously off. Now, his BH was considerably better later on than in the past, his slices too, his serve evolved in arguably the best serve on tour in later stages. His net game was MUCH more effective in the later stages of his career not only because it shortened the points but also because in that era, there were not many players that knew how to handle him on the net.

As for your last comment - that describes the whole RF “dominance” - it was easy to dominate Hewitt, Baghdadis, Phillapousis, Roddick, sidetracked Safin, very young ND, very old and crippled AA, Gonzales, but not fully developed ND, Murray, streaky Delpo, wawrinka, Tsonga and solid Nadal (when healthy).
By the way, RF losses during that 2012 season were mainly to people I listed above, when he had true, solid competition.
In fact, he came back SIX years later and won another slam!

Is this your honest opinion? The irony of you complaining about people falling victim to political propaganda when you have bought Djokovic fanboy propaganda so thoroughly.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Its funny.

When Federer beat Agassi 8 times in a row when Agassi was 33-35, Agassi was old and washed out.

When Nole beat Federer when Fed was 33-35 its a really big thing beating other ATGs.

 

[Razer]

Connors is an exception.
Players used to win slams at the age of 17, today it is impossible.
Tennis has changed, players mature later and play tennis longer, it has nothing to do with the tennis of the 20th century.

People can still win at 19, it is not that much different today.

Winning at 18 is also not entirely impossible if a freak like Nadal or Becker arrive.

17 is impossible today because nobody is that freakish anymore, so the actual deviation is by 1-2 years only, not a lot. This also explains that in the past primes ended in mid-late 20s, today it is late 20s to touching 30.

So 20s is now prime instead of 18-27 or so in the past.

 

[4UTRMoutet]

Clay merchant

Clown merchant

 

[junkieballer]

Wins over other Big3 in their favourite Slam (AO Djokovic, RG Nadal, WI Federer):

Djokovic 5
Nadal 1
Federer 1

Wins over other Big3 in their two favourite Slams (AO-WI Djokovic, RG-UO Nadal, WI-AO Federer)

Djokovic 9
Nadal 5
Federer 2

Wins over other Big3 in their three favourite Slams (AO-WI-UO Djokovic, RG-UO-AO Nadal, WI-AO-UO Federer)

Djokovic 15
Nadal 7
Federer 6

 

[ghostofMecir]

This type of obsession can't be healthy.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I liked McEnroe not backing down or apologizing when he was asked to apologize about the whole Serena vs male players thing.

Also, credit to Serena for saying that Murray would beat her with ease and it was a completely different level and not possible to compete.

To ask him to apologize shows the complete lunacy of those people. excuse for what exactly? They even made it sound that he was running around discrediting Serena's achievements when those guys were the ones coming to him and asking him. Mac was way to lenient on those clowns, if I were him I would have never let this idiotic reporter off the hook when he asked him where he would place Serena. He tried to brush it away with saying he is not an expert on tennis, I would have told him "then why are you opening your dumbass mouth in the first place on topics you are an acknowledged ignorant on"?

Anywho, Serena also backflipped on her Murray statement later on. As for Fed: him backing down when he was asked the same question few weeks later was completely lame.

 

[Razer]

To ask him to apologize shows the complete lunacy of those people. excuse for what exactly? They even made it sound that he was running around discrediting Serena's achievements when those guys were the ones coming to him and asking him. Mac was way to lenient on those clowns, if I were him I would have never let this idiotic reporter off the hook when he asked him where he would place Serena. He tried to brush it away with saying he is not an expert on tennis, I would have told him "then why are you opening your dumbass mouth in the first place on topics you are an acknowledged ignorant on"?

Anywho, Serena also backflipped on her Murray statement later on. As for Fed: him backing down when he was asked the same question few weeks later was completely lame.

Federer thinks about his sponsors and a lot of people before speaking something, he does not cut loose.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Federer thinks about his sponsors and a lot of people before speaking something, he does not cut loose.

True. Which is lame. This makes all his public statements essentially worthless.

 

[dr325i]

Is this your honest opinion? The irony of you complaining about people falling victim to political propaganda when you have bought Djokovic fanboy propaganda so thoroughly.

And how did I do that???
1) ND is not my favorite player
2) I look at it realistically (my angle, pure numbers, I am an engineer)
3) I listen what experts say (they know more about the game than me)
4) I do not involve my emotions into this at all but I get pissed when people devalue others achievements (and no one has achieved more than ND. Phelps is the best swimmer in history because he got most medals, not because his swim style is the nicest and not because he beat everyone by a mile (weak era?); woods is the best golfer because of…c Vaughn (sp?) best skier…. I agree, different eras, different greatest of that era. In the era of the Big Three, it is very clear and easy.

 

[Jonas78]

This type of obsession can't be healthy.

These guys are way more obsessed with Federer than Djokovic, must be a very complicated and frustrating relationship, i sure hope they are fine in the end!

 

[Razer]

True. Which is lame. This makes all his public statements essentially worthless.

Watching Federer even Nadal learned to be diplomatic and later even Djokovic was forced to tone down a lot.

 

[Jonas78]

Again - HE said that, not me!
Do I think he played his best tennis during his mature years? Yes and no.
Obviously, his movement was not on par with his peak years but the easiness of his movement and his anticipation and experience vastly compensated for that. His FH was not as potent as earlier years, but again, not tremendously off. Now, his BH was considerably better later on than in the past, his slices too, his serve evolved in arguably the best serve on tour in later stages. His net game was MUCH more effective in the later stages of his career not only because it shortened the points but also because in that era, there were not many players that knew how to handle him on the net.

As for your last comment - that describes the whole RF “dominance” - it was easy to dominate Hewitt, Baghdadis, Phillapousis, Roddick, sidetracked Safin, very young ND, very old and crippled AA, Gonzales, but not fully developed ND, Murray, streaky Delpo, wawrinka, Tsonga and solid Nadal (when healthy).
By the way, RF losses during that 2012 season were mainly to people I listed above, when he had true, solid competition.
In fact, he came back SIX years later and won another slam!

Dont see how any of this implies he was better at 35 than 25. Federers win/age is in line with tennis history, its Noles that isnt.

Based on tennis history the correct question isnt why Federer didnt win more in his thirties, its why Nole did?

Until Sincaraz arrived you could argue it was Nole that was too good, but when Sincaraz dominates the same field even more, that argument got crushed to pieced.

 

[dr325i]

Dont see how any of this implies he was better at 35 than 25. Federers win/age is in line with tennis history, its Noles that isnt.

Based on tennis history the correct question isnt why Federer didnt win more in his thirties, its why Nole did?

Until Sincaraz arrived you could argue it was Nole that was too good, but when Sincaraz dominates the same field even more, that argument got crushed to pieced.

Federer first 8 slams were breeze until Rafa showed up, then Novak matured end of 2010 and all was over. Not because he got old but because he could not compete. If Rafa and ND were not there, RF would have had 35 slams today.
RF fans always pull the age/weak era arguments to make them feel better. The reality is completely different.

 

[GabeT]

This type of obsession can't be healthy.

This should be TTW’s tagline

 

[ghostofMecir]

Federer first 8 slams were breeze until Rafa showed up, then Novak matured end of 2010 and all was over. Not because he got old but because he could not compete. If Rafa and ND were not there, RF would have had 35 slams today.
RF fans always pull the age/weak era arguments to make them feel better. The reality is completely different.

Go through history and see how many times a 30 year old or even a 27 year one beats a 5 years younger ATG in slams. Surfaces, balls, rackets all went through some changes in one generation and when this happens, the older player is at a disadvantage.

Now, add on to this the younger ATGs in question happen to be the among a few who can be considered the greatest ever--this has never happened. AND, to top it all off, Federer was playing with a stroke he learned in a much different era that is basically useless now (i.e., the one handed bh) AND was playing with a racket meant for a different era.

These are completely unique circumstances that only apply to Federer.

 

[dr325i]

Go through history and see how many times a 30 year old or even a 27 year one beats a 5 years younger ATG in slams. surfaces, balls, rackets all went through some changes in one generation and when this happens, the older player is at a disadvantage.

Now, add on to this the younger ATGs in question happen to be the among a few who can be considered the greatest ever--this has never happened. AND, to top it all off, Federer was playing with a stroke he learned in a much different ear that is basically useless now (i.e., the one handed bh) AND was playing with a racket meant for a different era.

These are completely unique circumstances that only apply to Federer.

Wait, now, we are going to involve the rackets, shoes, technique…
That is all a part of the player we are evaluating…

ND is still up H2H vs Alcaraz, beat him in the slams, a bit more than 5 year difference. We agree that Alcaraz is ATG at this point?
Maybe I am missing your point?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

And how did I do that???
1) ND is not my favorite player

I haven't paid attention to who your favourite player ever is but among the B3 it's clearly Djokovic and you being a Federer (and Nadal) detractor in line with that is not surprising.

2) I look at it realistically (my angle, pure numbers, I am an engineer)
3) I listen what experts say (they know more about the game than me)

Rather, you interpret what data is available in ways you like that support your opinions and so do the 'experts' available for us to listen to (if they use data at all, often it's vibes).

4) I do not involve my emotions into this at all but I get pissed when people devalue others achievements (and no one has achieved more than ND. Phelps is the best swimmer in history because he got most medals, not because his swim style is the nicest and not because he beat everyone by a mile (weak era?); woods is the best golfer because of…c Vaughn (sp?) best skier…. I agree, different eras, different greatest of that era. In the era of the Big Three, it is very clear and easy.

Achievement numbers are there, available for everyone to look at. Your point? You weren't just reciting achievements here but stating your opinion on competition and level of play. Opinions on competition and level of play are exactly why/how some reject Djokovic as goat as they do not see his level and competition as superior.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Wait, now, we are going to involve the rackets, shoes, technique…
That is all a part of the player we are evaluating…

ND is still up H2H vs Alcaraz, beat him in the slams, a bit more than 5 year difference. We agree that Alcaraz is ATG at this point?
Maybe I am missing your point?

You don't think that somebody playing with an antiquated stroke and an antiquated racket technology as the game changed drastically from the time he was a junior matters?

It becomes more and more apparent which posters here know anything at all about the game.