Which Career would you Prefer hypothetical

Will 22 slams be enough for Rafa to surpass Rogers Career


  • Total voters
    73
  • Poll closed .
The H2H is blindly used against Fed when in fact can work against Djokovic too and in their desire to put Federer down, Lew and others forget about it and they do a disservice to their own player.
Well it's just ridiculous. You've got one member significantly older than the other two and Lew is constantly crowing about him having the worst record. They're then using that profound nugget of wisdom to effectively denounce his career, like it's the only relevant metric. It's curtain-chewing levels of muppetry.
 

DIMI_D

Rookie
Well it's just ridiculous. You've got one member significantly older than the other two and Lew is constantly crowing about him having the worst record. They're then using that profound nugget of wisdom to effectively denounce his career, like it's the only relevant metric. It's curtain-chewing levels of muppetry.
The head to head between the three players is very close. You have to take into consideration the playing surface and also their age. Federer is the oldest by almost five years, so obviously you would expect Nadal and Djokovic to have an advantage, especially at this point in their careers. Likewise, Nadal excels on clay so he would have a distinct advantage when playing on this surface.
 

canta_Brian

Semi-Pro
Your counter-argument?
And based off your woeful summary of my post I have to conclude you didn't read it.
You might be a bit thin skinned for a forum.
You’re not the only Petesomething on these boards. My point was general, that posters will never change their position no matter what. Your somewhat testy response only reinforces that idea.
 

itrium84

Professional
What about 1 non clay slam? Wimbledon or US open say?
For me:
Nadal with 21 is enough only if 21st is AO. 2xCGS would seal it, definitely. No debate.
Nadal with 22, only if one of last two is non-RG. Still, highly debatable.
Nadal with 23 (all 3 RG), that would be enough, also. And also highly debatable.
These comparisons are so hard and highly subjective, it's all about how much weight you give to most important accomplishments.
 

DIMI_D

Rookie
1 AO Double career grand slam would be unreal but I don’t see it happening but 1 RG and another US or Wimbledon would be more valuable in my opinion even though the double career grand slam hasn’t been done in the open era. But surely 3 slams on each surface and a extra RG title would outweigh one AO and the double career slam surely. I think at this stage if he gets Wimbledon would be nearly as Massive as having the double career slam
 
Last edited:

Tiki-Taka

Rookie
Personally I get the distribution argument and it really highlights Federer's as well as Djokovic's dominance on the Tour well. But I don't get the undervaluing of single event dominance and the occasional narrative that once you get to a certain number of titles there, any new ones have little or no value. After Nadal hit double digits in Paris that was mentioned quite a few times. If Fed added more Wimbledon titles where he had chances to do so, and should Novak continue to win in Australia, I don't think the same reactions would happen.

At the end of the day I imagine they will all end up with similar numbers which would make these debates last forever. And since Slams aren't the only measure of greatness, the only fair thing to do is consider all sides of the argument as all three of these guys have earned their place in this discussion for their respective qualities and achievements.
 

DIMI_D

Rookie
At present Nadal has a better distribution than Novak but he gets bashed more for it.
12 slams on hard to 6 off for Novak
13 slams clay to 7 off Nadal
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Yes for sure his stats off clay are impressive enough for me he has as many slams as McEnroe.
Fed has 9 slams off hard
Nadal 7 slams off clay
Novak 6 slams off hard
So to me that’s not to bad of a distribution skew as it’s made out to be
True! IMO, the big three as of today, are equal career wise.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Subjective.I can say that the best match was the AO 2017 and we are not going anywhere.Rafa won a match out of 4 at Wimbledon and that can't be in Fed's detriment at all, because you win some, you lose some.Maybe Rafa would have also snatch a win against Novak had they play at least 4 times at the AO.
That match is clearly regarded as one of the best matches not just of the 21st century but all time. And it does matter when you were unable to best or even take your rival to five sets on their surface in 6 tries but they beat you on yours on the 3rd.

Ironically what it tells us is that Rafa is the more complete player than Roger because unlike Roger he can beat anyone on either surface.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
That match is clearly regarded as one of the best matches not just of the 21st century but all time. And it does matter when you were unable to best or even take your rival to five sets on their surface in 6 tries but they beat you on yours on the 3rd.

Ironically what it tells us is that Rafa is the more complete player than Roger because unlike Roger he can beat anyone on either surface.
Fedovic were never able to go past a well playing Rafa at the French, while he beat them on grass and hard respectively.
Federer still pushed Rafa to 5 on clay, although not at the French and to this day, it's the closest he has ever been to lose a 5th set on clay.
You can't blame Fed for losing to a well playing Rafa at Wimbledon because no one in the Open Era has ever won a slam 6 consecutive times.Fed was very close.
No, Nadal is not more complete, it's that he is more dominant on his home surface than anyone has ever been in tennis history.He deserves all the credit for that.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Fedovic were never able to go past a well playing Rafa at the French, while he beat them on grass and hard respectively.
Federer still pushed Rafa to 5 on clay, although not at the French and to this day, it's the closest he has ever been to lose a 5th set on clay.
No, Nadal is not more complete, it's that he is more dominant on his home surface than anyone has ever been in tennis history.He deserves all the credit for that.
Now you are trying to use Rafa's godliness on clay as an argument for Federer. Doesn't work. Nadal beat Federer on both surfaces' most important tournament: the Slams, Federer failed to reciprocate. Nadal also has multiple slams on both surfaces, unlike Federer. That shows greater level and completeness from Nadal on these 2 surfaces than Federer. Nadal being as great as he is on clay doesn't give Federer an excuse for failing to even take him to 5 at RG, let alone win.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Now you are trying to use Rafa's godliness on clay as an argument for Federer. Doesn't work. Nadal beat Federer on both surfaces' most important tournament: the Slams, Federer failed to reciprocate. Nadal also has multiple slams on both surfaces, unlike Federer. That shows greater level and completeness from Nadal on these 2 surfaces than Federer. Nadal being as great as he is on clay doesn't give Federer an excuse for failing to even take him to 5 at RG, let alone win.
I am not excusing Federer because he had his chances and blew them every time.
You can't judge the completeness of 2 players solely based on how they matchup.Fed has won the biggest titles in every conditions, while Nadal has never done the same indoors.Anyway, I don't want to go down this rabbit hole and start a Fedal debate here because with you, debates can last forever.
 

DIMI_D

Rookie
I am not excusing Federer because he had his chances and blew them every time.
You can't judge the completeness of 2 players solely based on how they matchup.Fed has won the biggest titles in every conditions, while Nadal has never done the same indoors.Anyway, I don't want to go down this rabbit hole and start a Fedal debate here because with you, debates can last forever.
Completeness is factor for sure in terms of lack of Tour final trophy but a 2 slam lead would put that to bed.
 

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
No offense to the serious effort some of you'all put in but I'm bored of the same arguments.

So I'll just say this -

They're both equally accomplished careers slams wise right now. A few slams here or there doesn't change much for me. Still prefer Roger's career because I like his playstyle and was never a clay fan even before these guys.

I'm sure clay fans can say the same for Rafa and that's equally valid.
 

NAS

Rookie
For me personally I like Fed more than Rafa but at 22 Rafa will be better than Fed for normal view, the comparison is just like Roddick and Stan , at two slam for me Roddic> Stan but after third slam and next RG final it was reversed, no.1 doesnt matter.
3slam one master looked better than 5 master and one slam
 
Last edited:
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Fraudster's game is easier on the eye and is closer to the classical style of play I enjoyed from the historical greats, although that similarity is wayyy overstated by many - let's not forget the guy is a baseliner at heart who occasionally ventures forward for putaways. He also has amazing stats ans streaks. Problem is most people know he accumulated them in the age of Roddick which kind of devalues their prestige. He was always dominated by Rafa and later Nole too, and isn't even the best of his era. On the other hand, whatever his fans say, Rafa's resume is clearly clay skewed. Being unbeatable at RG adds to your prestige, having 7 combined majors at the 3 other slam venues, just over half your haul at the 4th does not.

I think all in all I would prefer Fed's career sjnce on paper it looks more complete and I could coast to a ton of confidence and self-assurance beating Roddick and Kiefer in slams. Sure, the House of Cards would eventually collapse but it would be so good while it lasted.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Well it's just ridiculous. You've got one member significantly older than the other two and Lew is constantly crowing about him having the worst record. They're then using that profound nugget of wisdom to effectively denounce his career, like it's the only relevant metric. It's curtain-chewing levels of muppetry.
Becker and Edberg were 6 years older than Pete and Andre. Neither was expected to lose to them because of the age difference. That excuse is even less relevant today when modern medicine, nutrition and juices drastically reduce the impact of age on performance. Thiem just won his first major around the same age Pete had over half his total haul.

Fed's age difference with Djokodal is not "significant", especially in this era.
 
Becker and Edberg were 6 years older than Pete and Andre. Neither was expected to lose to them because of the age difference. That excuse is even less relevant today when modern medicine, nutrition and juices drastically reduce the impact of age on performance. Thiem just won his first major around the same age Pete had over half his total haul.

Fed's age difference with Djokodal is not "significant", especially in this era.
Bullsheet. If medicine, nutrition and juices can help you when you're older they can help you when you're younger too. Your comparison with those players highlights exactly what should happen so I'm not sure what that accomplishes. I suppose since PETE GOAT is a logical absolute then it was an anomaly, right? Oh and using Thiem's win as a QED is ROFLMAO.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Bullsheet. If medicine, nutrition and juices can help you when you're older they can help you when you're younger too. Your comparison with those players highlights exactly what should happen so I'm not sure what that accomplishes. I suppose since PETE GOAT is a logical absolute then it was an anomaly, right? Oh and using Thiem's win as a QED is ROFLMAO.
Becker and Edberg were not expected to lose to Sampras and Agassi when they played. Becker played Agassi tough in slams and beat him in Wimbledon '95 semi-final and Edberg beat Pete at the USO final in '92 and AO in '93. Agassi dominated Boris because he dominated all serve and volley players aside from PETE, who was 10-7 against Boris at the end of '96. Pete was an even closer 8-6 against Edberg. These are not records of guys who are losing because of age against the next batch. They were losing because they were not good enough to keep up, which Becker himself said about Pete. No age excuses, he was simply better at his best, and Boris said he was still in great shape.

Federer has the same issue against Novak. His age difference is much negated compared to the days of Edberg and Becker due to modern juices. He's simply not good enough.
 
Becker and Edberg were not expected to lose to Sampras and Agassi when they played. Becker played Agassi tough in slams and beat him in Wimbledon '95 semi-final and Edberg beat Pete at the USO final in '92 and AO in '93. Agassi dominated Boris because he dominated all serve and volley players aside from PETE, who was 10-7 against Boris at the end of '96. Pete was an even closer 8-6 against Edberg. These are not records of guys who are losing because of age against the next batch. They were losing because they were not good enough to keep up, which Becker himself said about Pete. No age excuses, he was simply better at his best, and Boris said he was still in great shape.

Federer has the same issue against Novak. His age difference is much negated compared to the days of Edberg and Becker due to modern juices. He's simply not good enough.
They almost certainly were once they approached 30, don't you think? Pete-Edberg went 3-5 followed by 5-0 in completed matches, and Edberg's last match against him was when he was 29 and Pete was 24. How do you think the H2H would have developed if Edberg continued to play Pete until, say, 2002? Do you think it would have been more like the first stint of the second? Likewise, do you think if Becker and Pete manage to double their match tally from their last match onwards, do you see it going 24-14? Cos I sure as hell don't.

But anyhow, this is a slight red herring anyway, because it does just so happen that PETE was a better player than the previous generation, and I agree with Boom Boom; I think it was clear enough from PETE's immense game. However, the sequence was still evident. The thing is, I don't see the same upgrade over Fed at all, and the way the H2Hs have developed has too many nuances and historical precedent for me to consider otherwise, really.

My comment about how juices etc. help has been swept under the rug so we'll draw that one to a close.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
They almost certainly were once they approached 30, don't you think? Pete-Edberg went 3-5 followed by 5-0 in completed matches, and Edberg's last match against him was when he was 29 and Pete was 24. How do you think the H2H would have developed if Edberg continued to play Pete until, say, 2002? Do you think it would have been more like the first stint of the second? Likewise, do you think if Becker and Pete manage to double their match tally from their last match onwards, do you see it going 24-14? Cos I sure as hell don't.

But anyhow, this is a slight red herring anyway, because it does just so happen that PETE was a better player than the previous generation, and I agree with Boom Boom; I think it was clear enough from PETE's immense game. However, the sequence was still evident. The thing is, I don't see the same upgrade over Fed at all, and the way the H2Hs have developed has too many nuances and historical precedent for me to consider otherwise, really.

My comment about how juices etc. help has been swept under the rug so we'll draw that one to a close.
Not at all, I just don't see how that changes the fact that Federer's stamina and fitness are drastically improved by those juices such that he's able to play at a high level well enough to execute his gameplan with excellence. Of course Novak and Nadal have the same juices, and that helps them as well with their fitness, but Federer's matches against both players have never been about stamina and fitness the way that Novak's matches against Nadal have been. Federer's game is about his timing, his footwork, his point construction and aggression, all of which he's able to execute extremely well due to said modern juices that preserve him.

Pete by contrast couldn't execute his game to a level anywhere near his best day in, day out as he got older because he lacked the same juices. Could play a couple great matches in a row, then show up gassed to a final and got crushed, a.l.a. Hewitt 2001. Totally different game with recovery tools of today.

As far as Becker-Edberg goes, them playing into their 30s against Pete v Fed playing into his 30s with Djokodal are two different realities because of the said lack of recovery and fitness preservations available to them. Primes and peaks and high levels of play were much shorter back then, so playing into their late 20s or so was more or less equal to Fed playing into his mid 30s against Djokodal, and like him, they posted very respectable results against the younger ATGs they went up against.

The improvement I see from Novak in particular over Fed is his ability to defend against fed's attacks, and expose his weaknesses, which are bigger than Novak's more effectively than Fed can vice versa. He improved his game far more than Fed did his until the 2015ish renaissance. For example, Fed used to be able to reliably get free points on Nole by slice serving out wide to his forehand, even on clay. This was evident from 2011-12. Starting 2014 and on, Novak improved that return drastically and its no longer a weakness that can be exploited in big moments. Novak also improved his forehand and his anticipation of short balls from Roger, especially from Roger's backhand, whether it be slice or a weak topspin return. On the slice, Roger used to intentionally bait him with short balls into No Man's Land and get him into awkward positions that would give Roger the advantage in the rally. He would also unintentionally cough up short balls on the backhand side which Novak really didn't take advantage of. I think the turning point in their rivalry was that 2014 Wimbledon final where I noticed Novak handling both shots much better and driving Federer back with his own inside out forehand to the backhand. Now, he's perfected that tactic to such a degree he doesn't even need to get overtly aggressive on the shorter balls Roger coughs up; he can return them with moderate level of aggression and comfortably lead the rally knowing he'll win it, without speeding up his pace.

In short, Novak in particular has improved at a rate that is faster than Roger's ability to keep up with him via his own improvements (backhand, serve, net game) and leads him to beat Roger on the biggest stages time and time again.
 

Sunny014

Hall of Fame
Not at all, I just don't see how that changes the fact that Federer's stamina and fitness are drastically improved by those juices such that he's able to play at a high level well enough to execute his gameplan with excellence. Of course Novak and Nadal have the same juices, and that helps them as well with their fitness, but Federer's matches against both players have never been about stamina and fitness the way that Novak's matches against Nadal have been. Federer's game is about his timing, his footwork, his point construction and aggression, all of which he's able to execute extremely well due to said modern juices that preserve him.

Pete by contrast couldn't execute his game to a level anywhere near his best day in, day out as he got older because he lacked the same juices. Could play a couple great matches in a row, then show up gassed to a final and got crushed, a.l.a. Hewitt 2001. Totally different game with recovery tools of today.

As far as Becker-Edberg goes, them playing into their 30s against Pete v Fed playing into his 30s with Djokodal are two different realities because of the said lack of recovery and fitness preservations available to them. Primes and peaks and high levels of play were much shorter back then, so playing into their late 20s or so was more or less equal to Fed playing into his mid 30s against Djokodal, and like him, they posted very respectable results against the younger ATGs they went up against.

The improvement I see from Novak in particular over Fed is his ability to defend against fed's attacks, and expose his weaknesses, which are bigger than Novak's more effectively than Fed can vice versa. He improved his game far more than Fed did his until the 2015ish renaissance. For example, Fed used to be able to reliably get free points on Nole by slice serving out wide to his forehand, even on clay. This was evident from 2011-12. Starting 2014 and on, Novak improved that return drastically and its no longer a weakness that can be exploited in big moments. Novak also improved his forehand and his anticipation of short balls from Roger, especially from Roger's backhand, whether it be slice or a weak topspin return. On the slice, Roger used to intentionally bait him with short balls into No Man's Land and get him into awkward positions that would give Roger the advantage in the rally. He would also unintentionally cough up short balls on the backhand side which Novak really didn't take advantage of. I think the turning point in their rivalry was that 2014 Wimbledon final where I noticed Novak handling both shots much better and driving Federer back with his own inside out forehand to the backhand. Now, he's perfected that tactic to such a degree he doesn't even need to get overtly aggressive on the shorter balls Roger coughs up; he can return them with moderate level of aggression and comfortably lead the rally knowing he'll win it, without speeding up his pace.

In short, Novak in particular has improved at a rate that is faster than Roger's ability to keep up with him via his own improvements (backhand, serve, net game) and leads him to beat Roger on the biggest stages time and time again.
Are you a fool ?

Federer being able execute his gameplan against others in his mid 30s does not necessarily mean he should be able to do that vs Novak, someone can still operate high enough to take down lesser mortals but be down against a guy who is young and at his absolute best, to beat that you too need to be at your best, then you will win. Novak isn't some top 10 player whom Federer can remove, he is 1 and an ATG with multiple slams ......

I told you 100s of times that Usain Bolt's Gold Medal timing in the 100M final of the 2016 Olympics was lower than the Bronze Medal timing of the 3rd guy in the 100M final of the 2012 Olympics, the decline is very much real in old age but Usain still won because the rest of the field slowed down even more as they too were older.

Decline in old age is real, athletics or swimming shows you that to the nearest microsecond, in a game like Tennis thats only a relative thing with respect to medal type ..... You much be a big idiot to even ignore all this.
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Are you a fool ?

Federer being able execute his gameplan against others in his mid 30s does not necessarily mean he should be able to do that vs Novak, someone can still operate high enough to take down lesser mortals but be down against a guy who is young and at his absolute best, to beat that you too need to be at your best, then you will win. Novak isn't some top 10 player whom Federer can remove, he is 1 and an ATG with multiple slams ......

I told you 100s of times that Usain Bolt's Gold Medal timing in the 100M final of the 2016 Olympics was lower than the Bronze Medal timing of the 3rd guy in the 100M final of the 2012 Olympics, the decline is very much real in old age but Usain still won because the rest of the field slowed down even more as they too were older.

Decline in old age is real, athletics or swimming shows you that to the nearest microsecond, in a game like Tennis thats only a relative thing with respect to medal type ..... You much be a big idiot to even ignore all this.
More ad hominem, more insecurity, more weak arguments. Get back to me when you decide to talk like an adult.

Chao.
 
Not at all, I just don't see how that changes the fact that Federer's stamina and fitness are drastically improved by those juices such that he's able to play at a high level well enough to execute his gameplan with excellence. Of course Novak and Nadal have the same juices, and that helps them as well with their fitness, but Federer's matches against both players have never been about stamina and fitness the way that Novak's matches against Nadal have been. Federer's game is about his timing, his footwork, his point construction and aggression, all of which he's able to execute extremely well due to said modern juices that preserve him.

Pete by contrast couldn't execute his game to a level anywhere near his best day in, day out as he got older because he lacked the same juices. Could play a couple great matches in a row, then show up gassed to a final and got crushed, a.l.a. Hewitt 2001. Totally different game with recovery tools of today.

As far as Becker-Edberg goes, them playing into their 30s against Pete v Fed playing into his 30s with Djokodal are two different realities because of the said lack of recovery and fitness preservations available to them. Primes and peaks and high levels of play were much shorter back then, so playing into their late 20s or so was more or less equal to Fed playing into his mid 30s against Djokodal, and like him, they posted very respectable results against the younger ATGs they went up against.

The improvement I see from Novak in particular over Fed is his ability to defend against fed's attacks, and expose his weaknesses, which are bigger than Novak's more effectively than Fed can vice versa. He improved his game far more than Fed did his until the 2015ish renaissance. For example, Fed used to be able to reliably get free points on Nole by slice serving out wide to his forehand, even on clay. This was evident from 2011-12. Starting 2014 and on, Novak improved that return drastically and its no longer a weakness that can be exploited in big moments. Novak also improved his forehand and his anticipation of short balls from Roger, especially from Roger's backhand, whether it be slice or a weak topspin return. On the slice, Roger used to intentionally bait him with short balls into No Man's Land and get him into awkward positions that would give Roger the advantage in the rally. He would also unintentionally cough up short balls on the backhand side which Novak really didn't take advantage of. I think the turning point in their rivalry was that 2014 Wimbledon final where I noticed Novak handling both shots much better and driving Federer back with his own inside out forehand to the backhand. Now, he's perfected that tactic to such a degree he doesn't even need to get overtly aggressive on the shorter balls Roger coughs up; he can return them with moderate level of aggression and comfortably lead the rally knowing he'll win it, without speeding up his pace.

In short, Novak in particular has improved at a rate that is faster than Roger's ability to keep up with him via his own improvements (backhand, serve, net game) and leads him to beat Roger on the biggest stages time and time again.
Djoker definitely improved on grass and W14 is an excellent suggestion, but there really is no comparison between Fed's ground game then vs in his pomp, there really isn't imo. Did Djoker deal with the slice better? Yes. Was Fed playing at peak level? Nowhere near imo, though it was a great serving day.

Still wondering why these juices only prevent decline and don't boost peaks, btw. It's like they can only boost to a cap, that cap being the natural peak, or something. But the thing is, they don't even do that. Fed's movement and stamina have observably declined over many years, but I wouldn't expect you to agree with that.
 

DIMI_D

Rookie
For me personally I like Fed more than Rafa but at 22 Rafa will be better than Fed for normal view, the comparison is just like Roddick and Stan , at two slam for me Roddic> Stan but after third slam and next RG final it was reversed, no.1 doesnt matter.
3slam one master looked better than 5 master and one slam
The more slams I think weeks world number 1 matter a lot less. You will see no important lists or analysts putting Lendl, Connors, McEnroe above Borg despite lack of weeks at world number 1
 
Top