NatF
Bionic Poster
367 weeks at #1 and 7 YE #1
Djokovic > Federer according to achievements
Career Inflation Era achievements count for half though.
367 weeks at #1 and 7 YE #1
Djokovic > Federer according to achievements
What if somebody claims the 20s , 30s and 40s and 50s weak and they were worse athletes than today though and the era was weaker?
I guess a lot of footage can still be found from 80s and 90s so it’s easier to compare peaks.
Djokovic was robbed in 2020 when Wimbledon got cancelled. We can count that then.Career Inflation Era achievements count for half though.
What’s the most far back tennis footage you have watched?As long as they're consistent that's their opinion I think the athletic difference relative to medical science and the different era's is often overstated. I care about play and dominance relative to peers.
Djokovic was robbed in 2020 when Wimbledon got cancelled. We can count that then.
What’s the most far back tennis footage you have watched?
They would have been good for my matchups but sadly I didn’t see anything relevant of him.I've seen bits of Tilden. But it's not relevant to my analysis of all-time standing.
Remember the order of Slams when Wimbledon got cancelled? USO, FO, AO and then FO again. Djokovic knew that he had to pound Nadal at the FO to keep himself in the Slam race.Djokovic being the moral equal to PETE at Wimbledon is the ultimate proof point for the inflation era.
Remember the order of Slams when Wimbledon got cancelled? USO, FO, AO and then FO again. Djokovic knew that he had to pound Nadal at the FO to keep himself in the Slam race.
If Djokovic wins 3rd FO then tennis is done.Remember the order of Slams when Wimbledon got cancelled? USO, FO, AO and then FO again. Djokovic knew that he had to pound Nadal at the FO to keep himself in the Slam race.
Djokovic can end the GOAT debate if...If Djokovic wins 3rd FO then tennis is done.
The peak threads and Djokovic deserves 3/4 Wim titles still wont die.Djokovic can end the GOAT debate if...
1. He defends his FO title this year.
2. He then boycotts Wimbledon and Nadal loses to some journeyman before QF.
Nadal would never recover from that.
Top 5.
Rafael Nadal ~ Novak Djokovic
Roger Federer
Rod Laver
Pancho Gonzales
This isn't pickle ball or club tennis. Pancho nor tabitha, Agatha, and Rita are allowed in these lists.Pancho
Fed/Laver
Djokovic
Nadal
This isn't pickle ball or club tennis. Pancho nor tabitha, Agatha, and Rita are allowed in these lists.
It is disgusting, disturbing, and down right cruel.
You should both be ashamed.
Please how is Rosewall above Federer, Sampras and Borg. That calls for some explanation!1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Laver
4. Pancho
5. Rosewall
6. Federer
7. Sampras
8. Borg
9. Lendl
10. Connors
Please how is Rosewall above Federer, Sampras and Borg. That calls for some explanation!
1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Laver
5. Borg
6. Sampras
7. Rosewall
8. Lendl
9. Tilden
10. Agassi
Really can’t believe I’m still seeing Federer ranked above Djokovic by some. That book is closed even if Federer gets to 21 and Djokovic still stays on 20 by some freak twist of fate. People also talk about an inflation era as if Federer himself didn’t benefit with 2 slams out of it
Ok so you count some non grand slam events as "majors". Interesting, which ones? I'm not that familiar with the before open era pro circuit.More majors than those guys. Greatest longevity of all time. Fed drops in the rankings because hes now 3rd behind Nadal/Djokovic. You can't throw someone to the top of the list when they let 2 guys overtake him in his own era. Sampras dominated but not enough Not enough masters titles for overrall body of work. . Borg dominated but retired too early and has no HC slam
Sometimes the best pre-Open tournaments were non-Pro Slam, with stronger fields, more prestigious locations, and more money. You have to look at each one separately.Ok so you count some non grand slam events as "majors". Interesting, which ones? I'm not that familiar with the before open era pro circuit.
I googled and there where some professional majors he won. This was way before my time so I can't judge the importance of those but surely they can't be considered equal to an Open era grand slam?
Djokovic is ahead of Fed but not by a lot.Yea I dont get that either. Everything of importance Djokovic surpassed Fed on. The book is still open between Nadal/Djokovic. Not sure how that plays out though. This year may determine it
It's certainly possible to make a case for Fed > Djoko, particularly if you place more value on W and USO. Fed also 'wins' on the style front....guy was always a joy to watch. Djoko more physicality in his game, IMHO. But, I do think Djoko has edged ahead (which I always thought he would). I have a hard time putting Nadal in front of them on GS alone, as the FO simply dominates his trophy case. But his AO win really makes me re-appraise him. It's really, really close with these 3, no question.Djokovic is ahead of Fed but not by a lot.
Here is a new Top Ten list for the pre-Open era from the former deputy Editor-in-Chief of Tennis Magazine (2007-2019). He brings a different perspective to his choices, concentrating on skill sets and athleticism.
https://www.tennismajors.com/others...g-the-lost-legends-of-mens-tennis-522421.html
1) Tilden
2) Budge
3) Hoad
4) Gonzales
5) Perry
6) Cochet
7) Lacoste
8) Santana
9) Renshaw
10) Ashe
If everyone agreed, there would be no discussion. Life would be dull.Like as in thanks, not agree w list, of course
It's certainly possible to make a case for Fed > Djoko, particularly if you place more value on W and USO. Fed also 'wins' on the style front....guy was always a joy to watch. Djoko more physicality in his game, IMHO. But, I do think Djoko has edged ahead (which I always thought he would). I have a hard time putting Nadal in front of them on GS alone, as the FO simply dominates his trophy case. But his AO win really makes me re-appraise him. It's really, really close with these 3, no question.
I think his 29-1 record in Davis Cup (5 titles and going undefeated after losing in Carpet as a teenager) and his 2 Gold Medals (1 Singles, 1 Doubles) should give him extra consideration in the debate. In addition, no player has a winning record in bo5 matches against him (minimum 2 wins) the same can't be said about the other two. I still rate Laver the GOAT but I think t's it's almost a draw between Nole and Nadal for second place.
If everyone agreed, there would be no discussion. Life would be dull.
Does Davis Cup count in the debate?
I think winning important ties over top opponents count as big matches. But that's kinda it. IIRC Nadal's record is superb but it's mostly home ties on clay rather than generally more difficult away meetings. Few meetings against other top players compared to the glory days of Davis Cup as well.
I do not wish to be too technical, but the professionals were often playing Davis Cup as of 1968.If we have a discussion about what DC matches count or have more value, then it becomes a bit subjective. Should the early Rod Laver DC wins mean less since he played against Amateurs and Professionals weren't allowed until 1973? It would be difficult to compare the DC accomplishments of Harry Hopman to the recent "big 4" of Tennis since it's different eras and formats. However, in this context my original post was comparing Nadal's accomplishments in "National Representation" to his biggest 2 rivals, and this is a no-brainer that his record and wins in DC and Olympics are better than both ND and Fed. Perhaps only Andy Murray who won 2 Gold Medals and was 31-3 in DC could rival Nadal's record in National Representation. Nadal beat ND both in Olympics and Davis Cup (3-straight sets) and he is collectively 39-3 in Singles. Even in 2016 when he had a bad wrist, he still won a Gold Medal in Doubles. Moreover, Nadal won bo5 matches on indoor HC (his kryptonite) and defeated GS slam champs as Roddick, Delpo, and Joker. He also has an Indoor HC win against Karen Khachanov who won the Paris Indoors in 2018. If you want to talk about an inflated DC record, then look at Baghdatis who had a 36-win streak by defeating mainly marginal players in RR matches. Borg's 33-win streak was definitely carrying bigger names than Baghdatis. Yet, even a good portion of Borg's wins also came in Clay like Nadal so are we going to demean Borg as well?
If you want to trivialize, minimize, or denigrate accomplishments then should we question the 37 M1000 wins that Joker has? Remember, even Nadal and Fed both have multiple M1000 titles that required a bo5 final. In addition, Joker won the ATP Cup in Australia the country where he won 9 slams. Am I going to belittle or put an asterisk on those wins? Not me. The fact that Nadal won many matches in Spain makes the presumptuous claim that it's his favorite country to play. Nadal wasn't even born in the mainland of Spain. The guy is from an Island that speaks a different dialect and most of his biggest success comes in France (RG, MC), Rome, and Barcelona which NONE of the DC matches were played. Nadal won DC matches (both singles and doubles) in Denmark, Belgium, Germany, and India so really it's a stretch to say his only wins came in Spain. As for 2019 the guy won 5 singles matches and 3 doubles matches in a week played on Indoor HC so yes he should get maybe just a little credit even if it's not bo5 or the old DC format.
If we have a discussion about what DC matches count or have more value, then it becomes a bit subjective. Should the early Rod Laver DC wins mean less since he played against Amateurs and Professionals weren't allowed until 1973? It would be difficult to compare the DC accomplishments of Harry Hopman to the recent "big 4" of Tennis since it's different eras and formats. However, in this context my original post was comparing Nadal's accomplishments in "National Representation" to his biggest 2 rivals, and this is a no-brainer that his record and wins in DC and Olympics are better than both ND and Fed. Perhaps only Andy Murray who won 2 Gold Medals and was 31-3 in DC could rival Nadal's record in National Representation. Nadal beat ND both in Olympics and Davis Cup (3-straight sets) and he is collectively 39-3 in Singles. Even in 2016 when he had a bad wrist, he still won a Gold Medal in Doubles. Moreover, Nadal won bo5 matches on indoor HC (his kryptonite) and defeated GS slam champs as Roddick, Delpo, and Joker. He also has an Indoor HC win against Karen Khachanov who won the Paris Indoors in 2018. If you want to talk about an inflated DC record, then look at Baghdatis who had a 36-win streak by defeating mainly marginal players in RR matches. Borg's 33-win streak was definitely carrying bigger names than Baghdatis. Yet, even a good portion of Borg's wins also came in Clay like Nadal so are we going to demean Borg as well?
If you want to trivialize, minimize, or denigrate accomplishments then should we question the 37 M1000 wins that Joker has? Remember, even Nadal and Fed both have multiple M1000 titles that required a bo5 final. In addition, Joker won the ATP Cup in Australia the country where he won 9 slams. Am I going to belittle or put an asterisk on those wins? Not me. The fact that Nadal won many matches in Spain makes the presumptuous claim that it's his favorite country to play. Nadal wasn't even born in the mainland of Spain. The guy is from an Island that speaks a different dialect and most of his biggest success comes in France (RG, MC), Rome, and Barcelona which NONE of the DC matches were played. Nadal won DC matches (both singles and doubles) in Denmark, Belgium, Germany, and India so really it's a stretch to say his only wins came in Spain. As for 2019 the guy won 5 singles matches and 3 doubles matches in a week played on Indoor HC so yes he should get maybe just a little credit even if it's not bo5 or the old DC format.
Good point, Nat.
DC does not really give Nadal the kind of "Legacy Boost" it does to others in history, from, for example, Cochet, Perry, Cramm, Sedge, Muscles, Ashe, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, et al.
His best opponents:
Roddick, Clement and Stepanek in 2004
Roddick 2008
Djokovic, Berdych 2009
del Potro, Gasquet, Tsonga 2011
Zeverev 2018
But 24-1 is something good.
I would have Pete over Borg for the 3 extra slams that’s a big gap.
But Borg retired early so what if will always be around.
You can't compare 2 slams with 8 and 7 respectively.1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Laver
5. Borg
6. Sampras
7. Rosewall
8. Lendl
9. Tilden
10. Agassi
Really can’t believe I’m still seeing Federer ranked above Djokovic by some. That book is closed even if Federer gets to 21 and Djokovic still stays on 20 by some freak twist of fate. People also talk about an inflation era as if Federer himself didn’t benefit with 2 slams out of it
You can't compare 2 slams with 8 and 7 respectively.
Plus, even in the career inflation era, Fed at 38 was tasked with winning a slam by beating 3 younger GOATS while Djokodal get away with far less.
Rafa was playing at a good/great level in those indeed, but so was Fed in several slams in 2014-2016 and 2019 and he walked away with nothing. I don't think 2018-2020 RG Nadal was really better than Fed at 2014/2015/2019 Wimb's.This may just be me using different definitions Imo in the inflation era, not all slams are inflated. It’s not right to lump 2017 FO Nadal in with 2022 AO Nadal, because the former would have destroyed any clay courter of this century so far not called Rafael Nadal. 2019 AO Djoker, who was lights-out brilliant in the semis and final, should not be lumped in with 2020 AO Djoker, who was a mess. Similarly it’s not good to lump 2017 AO Fed in with 2017 USO Nadal because 1 had Nishi, Stan and Rafa B2B and the other had MehPo and Anderson.
Imo none of Nadal’s FOs have been inflations. 2 had lights out tennis in them and the other 2 were just “good” by his standard, which is still really high by the standards of CC tennis this century. Again though this could just be semantics.
Rafa was playing at a good/great level in those indeed, but so was Fed in several slams in 2014-2016 and 2019 and he walked away with nothing. I don't think 2018-2020 RG Nadal was really better than Fed at 2014/2015/2019 Wimb's.
This may just be me using different definitions Imo in the inflation era, not all slams are inflated. It’s not right to lump 2017 FO Nadal in with 2022 AO Nadal, because the former would have destroyed any clay courter of this century so far not called Rafael Nadal. 2019 AO Djoker, who was lights-out brilliant in the semis and final, should not be lumped in with 2020 AO Djoker, who was a mess. Similarly it’s not good to lump 2017 AO Fed in with 2017 USO Nadal because 1 had Nishi, Stan and Rafa B2B and the other had MehPo and Anderson.
Imo none of Nadal’s FOs have been inflations. 2 had lights out tennis in them and the other 2 were just “good” by his standard, which is still really high by the standards of CC tennis this century. Again though this could just be semantics.
You say this but you didn't want to give Fed more than one vs this Nadal at RGmike danny, post: 16395259, member: 427497"]
Rafa was playing at a good/great level in those indeed, but so was Fed in several slams in 2014-2016 and 2019 and he walked away with nothing. I don't think 2018-2020 RG Nadal was really better than Fed at 2014/2015/2019 Wimb's.
You say this but you didn't want to give Fed more than one vs this Nadal at RG[QUOTE mike danny, post: 16395259, member: 427497"]
Rafa was playing at a good/great level in those indeed, but so was Fed in several slams in 2014-2016 and 2019 and he walked away with nothing. I don't think 2018-2020 RG Nadal was really better than Fed at 2014/2015/2019 Wimb's.
I mean, I don't see any evidence on why Rafa was better. Fed beat the other best players he faced with relative ease before running into peak/prime Djokovic in 2014/2015 and a stringer than 2020 Djokovic in 2019.But by that logic I could say we can give Djoker some +1s for RG 14 and 15 for example? This is where I’m super confused about definitions and how we are doing the comparisons, apologies. Might look up if there are good threads about inflation on here
StillTalking about the tournaments that took place, not a hypothetical.