While 2008 would have done the most2019 would have probably guaranteed Fed as the unanymous greatest grass player in history even if Djokovic would've reached 10W titles.
2012 would've just represent a strong argument against the ones who say Nadal slams H2H is greatly inflated by clay.
Such a shame they only ever met twice at the AO.Equal. Fed Wimby 19 would be incredible and seal his legacy no matter what at 38 years old.
BUT, Nadal would have been the only player to defeat him in an AO final and at his near peak and means his very impressive 11-7 slam h2h would be be 12-6 and lead Nole 3-2 in hc slams.
I agree, but OP asked only about 2012 and 2019.While 2008 would have done the most
7 consecutive Wimbledon titles
Never lost to Nadal on grass
21-21 slam tally
Slam h2h improved where Nadal wins AO and rg and fed defends wimby
That would also restrict Nadal to 1 Wimbledon title and that too in absence of fedkovic and completely end Nadal's goat debates.
Create a poll and you will see it more clearly.
If this is a response by an AI, it needs a lot more work.Each match is worth 800 points, that's it.
Probably 2019 WB. It could have changed the ending of the Big 3 marathon.Nadal beating the two HC GOATs back to back, one of them at his peak on his very own court that he is the GOAT of
or
Federer beating two GOAT contenders, both 5-6 years younger than him, back to to back, while he is almost 38 years old.
Neither, Nadal and Federer transcended the sport like no other players have done, maybe Alcaraz might, but legacy wise, Nadal and Federer scaled the peak of the legacy mountain.Nadal beating the two HC GOATs back to back, one of them at his peak on his very own court that he is the GOAT of
or
Federer beating two GOAT contenders, both 5-6 years younger than him, back to to back, while he is almost 38 years old.
Neither, Nadal and Federer transcended the sport like no other players have done, maybe Alcaraz might, but legacy wise, Nadal and Federer scaled the peak of the legacy mountain.
Helped by the powers? You mean some higher power made balls going out go in?Nah, the duo was helped so much by the powers, but they still ended up as the GOAT's background, lol.
2012 AO by far. Matches where both are in their prime are far more important to legacy. A match like 2019 Wimby with both guys way past their prime is only good for internet debates.
December 2010. A new sport was born. Tennis, they called it.This group is known for recency bias and cannot remember more than 3 years. Futile bringing 2012 now even though it is only the second year since tennis started
37*.Fed would have been 38 and back to back slam wins over his 2 career rivals and would have cemented himself a little higher . Would have to be his. 40-15? Crazy
It would have meant a win over Djokovic at the Australian Open, but I know what you mean.Whats the big deal about AO 2012 ? It adds nothing to Nadal's legacy, a guy with 2 titles or 3 at a slam are pretty much similar...
Exactly. Federer was 37 in the 2019 Wimbledon final, which took place on 14 July 2019. He didn't turn 38 until 8 August 2019.37*.
Djokovic is only ahead by outlasting Nadal, and only missing 1 major through injury in his career (2017 US Open).Nadal 2012 means he and ND tied at 23.
You can bet your money Fed will always think about it, no matter how rich he gets.It would have meant a win over Djokovic at the Australian Open, but I know what you mean.
Federer's 2019 Wimbledon final loss must be much more haunting, even more so for his fans than for him personally. I doubt Federer himself gives it much thought nowadays as he has a good life and he did win a lot in his tennis career anyway.
Fed would have been 38 and back to back slam wins over his 2 career rivals and would have cemented himself a little higher . Would have to be his. 40-15? Crazy
Wawrinka didYeah. No one has ever beaten Djokovic and Nadal at a Slam. No one
Would have been his first time doing that, exorcising both demons consecutively. Would have been bery hard to argue he wasn't a better player than both of them, if he could have gone through both at nearly 38
Wawrinka did
It would have meant a win over Djokovic at the Australian Open, but I know what you mean.
Federer's 2019 Wimbledon final loss must be much more haunting, even more so for his fans than for him personally. I doubt Federer himself gives it much thought nowadays as he has a good life and he did win a lot in his tennis career anyway.
He's 3rd in slams, and would still be 3rd in slams if he'd won it so that wouldn't change anything, just like AO 17 doesn't change anything in the eyes of the bean counters.Yeah... W2019 would have meant something special because Djok and Nadal are much younger and so at 38 doing over them would have forever told people that it was the age gap which prevented Fed from emerging on top of the count....losing that haunts the fans forever and it should.... We just know that Fed was the best of the 3 and yet he looks to be 3rd ....terrible
Imagine if Berdych had won 2010 Wimbledon, would have been wild scenes, or 2012 AO, facing Almagro, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic.Yeah. No one has ever beaten Djokovic and Nadal at a Slam. No one
Would have been his first time doing that, exorcising both demons consecutively. Would have been bery hard to argue he wasn't a better player than both of them, if he could have gone through both at nearly 38
Imagine if Berdych had won 2010 Wimbledon, would have been wild scenes, or 2012 AO, facing Almagro, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic.
He's 3rd in slams, and would still be 3rd in slams if he'd won it so that wouldn't change anything, just like AO 17 doesn't change anything in the eyes of the bean counters.
If Djokovic was at 21 or 22 you might have a point, but still that's strictly public perception among casuals.
For bean counters it doesn't matter anyway and I must tell you day by day bean counters are increasing, especially the public who never saw Big 3 play in their primes will always do bean counting and the population of that crowd is ever increasing and a time will come when it will become 90+%. As soon as Fed lost the record I quickly accepted he lost because that's the only narrative moving forward.
However, AO 2017 is very pivotal, that win told us that Fed always had it him to pwn Rafa if not for his racquet, gave us a lot of comfort. Wimbledon 2019 could have been the second slam which put a big dent on the subjective discussions. These are slams for the people who've seen the Big 3 Prime for Prime, otherwise nothing was gonna matter in the count, in the end Djokovic was always destined to end up on top as the ultimate winner because he had the mental toughness to force his age advantage on Fed...even that takes a lot....
Then again, if we look at life then perhaps some ways we can still say that Fed enjoyed the things thats most important. He was worshipped at a time when you actually can be worshipped, I mean you are only as relevant as long as your are playing so if he was the ruler of the tour for a better part of 2 decades when he was on it then it was special. Novak can today look Fed+Nadal in the eye in ways that they cannot to him, but Fed enjoyed the adulation which neither of them 2 ever had or will, sure it feels good to know that you won in the end but the process of being booed for 2 decades, hated, doubted, second guessed, insulted etc etc is terrible.