BorgTheGOAT
Legend
As you just did with mine
Who Faced the harder challenge to overcome ? (Djokovic vs Fedal) or (Federer vs Djokodal) ?
- Thread starter Razer
- Start date
GoatNo1
Legend
YES
not just that he had hardest competition, he was always distract and attacked by fedal fans and media as well as establishment who literally fixed draws at biggest stages to make it so easy they could that fed and rafa would play in the finals. and, out of tennis, he come from a country that was destroyed by NATO and civil wars while he was young. his parents needed to risk everything and borrow money from money sharks just that he could train and travel to some tournaments. he had so much harder on so many different levels that is not even comparable! but, that was probable why he become mentally toughest player of all time and could win in extremely hostile conditions and overcome all obstacles including politically imprisoning, bans and deportations. what did not kill you makes you stronger i guess!
Last edited:
Razer
G.O.A.T.
You are too aggressive and restless in your posts for a new user, that is what he meant.
Drink a glass of water and calm down, you are new here, so be calm and discuss. Yes people here think Murray is highly overrated and do not rate him that high as the big 3, he is considered on par with Hewitt and slightly better than Roddick. HIs peak level is considered below Safin, Soderling and Del Potro. You need to come to terms with these facts and not be aggressive/restless in your replies.
NatF
Bionic Poster
LMAO
Maddamhussein
Rookie
Again, I don’t follow. Should I have 10 years in the bank before I am allowed to respond to what can only be described as blatant hypocrisy? Do you guys think you’re the mafia or something? What’s that got to do with the content of my comments.
As far as my tone is concerned, I am consistent. My responses will always be in proportion to what it is I am replying to and I will always explain myself when I’m held to account. I will also always be firm in my responses to dishonest and bad faith actors such as yourself who’s only concerned with wishing that Murray was born in 1981. Literally every second comment of yours is about “if Murray was born in 1981…”, and I’m the one that needs a glass of water?
Imagine saying that Murray’s peak is lower than Soderling’s and then asking, “please be gentle with me when you reply”. Perhaps I should let the account fester for a few years before I am permitted to do so by the court of TTW?
You can’t have it both ways.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Murray being born in 1981 is a very valid point to ponder on because those 6 years difference could be what makes his 2-3 slams to become ZERO.
Reason --->>> Murray won 2 wimbledons in Djokovic's peak since he peaked with him, if you roll back 6 years then now his peak directly clashes with Federer's and also Nadal's. Ohh yes, Nadal too, Nadal's grass peak was over by 2012 and Murray's began in 2012, once 6 years are rolled back his peak/prime would also started in 06 instead of 12 and now instead of Djokovic he would have to deal with the savage Roger Federer and the brutal Bull Rafael Nadal... very unpleasant scenario for Murray, his slams vanish in thin air.
So there is no bad faith acting involving here, this is just basic logic which we are discussing here which could be uncomfortable to you as a fan of Sir Andrew, we can understand that, but facts are facts. Birth year of 6 years make a huge difference in the careers of the non atgs.
Maddamhussein
Rookie
And there we have it.
Can you imagine me doing this with Soderling, Del Potro, Safin or anyone else? It’s such bad form.
I don’t think you or your pals are aware of this but this is the ONLY tennis forum that behaves like this. Using terms like pigeon and bum and so forth.
This is why you don’t get to cry foul if someone coarsens their language with you.
The Guru
G.O.A.T.
I meant of the 17-22 era. I get that you're not super impressed with Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Schwartzman, Old Wawrinka/Federer/Del Po/Djokovic and the like but he went up against the best at the time and absolutely shat on all of them.
Like I'm sorry but that's just a poor excuse in my opinion. Yes Federer was older but he was also playing at a level that's better than some of the versions that were younger and was healthy and was still at least an approximation of himself. Those conditions have never been true about Nadal when he has lost to a mediocre player.
No because it's even. If you want to grant it to Federer you have to grant it to Nadal too and if you do then Nadal's performances are more impressive. Which they are.
Of course Federer had the hardest.
At the very beginning of his career, he had Sampras and Agassi who are a 22 slam winners combined. Then he had King of Clay who basically a gate keeper on clay.
In his 30s he never had a chance because he had to face 2 co-goats.
Anyone had watched tennis(except who started in 2011) wouldn't have any hesitation to vote for Federer
At the very beginning of his career, he had Sampras and Agassi who are a 22 slam winners combined. Then he had King of Clay who basically a gate keeper on clay.
In his 30s he never had a chance because he had to face 2 co-goats.
Anyone had watched tennis(except who started in 2011) wouldn't have any hesitation to vote for Federer
Razer
G.O.A.T.
The iterations of other birth years could be done for Soderling, Del Potro and Safin too. Soderling never won a slam, Del P probably loses his slam or maybe picks it in other eras too but Safin definitely picks 1-2 slams in ANY era, he has beaten Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Djokovic all in Australia, thats 22 Aus open slams between them, Djokovic was a baby when Safin beat him but then Safin was an old man when he beat an already slam winner Djokovic in 2008 at Wimbledon.... So don't worry, Safin picks 1-2 HC slams in ANY era.... he is that good.
As far as the coarse language goes, I am not crying foul but I must gently remind you that moderators are watching the forum and being a new user using coarse language is a faster way to get banned, hell nobody can get away with coarse language for long, not even old users, let alone new... So carry on, I am not worried but you should be.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Was plain obvious that you would say that. Not that I disagree, but your reasoning is stupid. He played Sampras a total of one time and that before his prime. He played Agassi when he was past it and in general Agassi is not big three level. Nadal in 2004-2007 was still mostly only he a threat on clay. Fed had a good period where he only barely faced anjther big three member just like Djokovic. Therefore imho Nadal had it the hardest. What’s your opinion between Fed and Nadal?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He lost 3 tiebreaks. This performance was not better than others when he was younger. And like I said, Nadal got lots of chances to build confidence against Djokovic at his pet slam, Fed didn’t. This is nowhere near a like to like comparison
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Federer did beat Djokovic in 4 sets in their 2012 Wimbledon semi final. I expected something similar in their 2014 Wimbledon final. Federer had won 2014 Halle, and reached the 2014 Wimbledon final by only losing 1 set.
zagor
Bionic Poster
The scary hobbit lol.
Point is Nadal in his 30s wasn't facing 6 year younger Novak at the FO like Fed was at Wimbledon, it's not an apples to apples comparison, simple. Yes, age matters in pro sports.
You think he would have defended his turf each time even in that scenario, I (and some others) disagree. 2017 yeah he was amazing, 2018,2019 and 2020 however, he would have been IMO vulnerable to a 6 year younger ATG who's also great on clay.
People aren't disagreeing that Nadal on clay is better than Fed on grass, they're saying that they gap is not as big as presented and that Nadal had better circumstances to pile up FOs in his 30s compared to Fed. It's hardly that much of a controversial opinion.
zagor
Bionic Poster
And if he was facing 33 year old Djokovic or the equivalent of an exhausted Thiem on grass (like I don't know, Pioline) he might have.
TheGoldenEra1990’s
Hall of Fame
Djoker got Fedal at the end of their primes or way past their primes when he was at his peak or prime
Who has it the worst, I would say Nadal. He was sandwiched between the two while at the same time dealing with incessant lower limb injuries
Fed was at a disadvantage though as nadalolivic are 5-6 years younger. Which when playing GOAT vs GOAT and the gap isn’t very large in talent, that age difference can make all the difference in the world
Who has it the worst, I would say Nadal. He was sandwiched between the two while at the same time dealing with incessant lower limb injuries
Fed was at a disadvantage though as nadalolivic are 5-6 years younger. Which when playing GOAT vs GOAT and the gap isn’t very large in talent, that age difference can make all the difference in the world
Mustard
Bionic Poster
And Nadal still won 6 of his last 10 matches against Djokovic in majors
GoatNo1
Legend
someone have to be the GOAT. maybe, some (no doping) guy will overtake all noles record someday. BUT with time all people will look after are records. and difference between nole and fedal will just increase. because nole holds all main records and that by some wide margin! you see, it is already 5 players that was longer no1 than rafa for exemple and with time, it will be more and more players between him and nole. it is already 2 players that have more YE#1 than fed and rafa and 2 more with the same number of YE#1s as each one of them. it will be more and more guys who will separate nole from fed and rafa in the future. to come to 24 slams players most pass first 20 and then 22. more and more guys will win OG and WTF, biggest titles after slams that fed and rafa did not win (not both). if some player or some players win all 4 slams consecutive so they will join nole and he will not be the only one who did it with 3 different surfaces. but at the same time it will be more players that manage to do something that fed and rafa never did! the gap between nole and fedal will just grow even if nole never win anything more. because it will be other players who will place them self in between big3 and automatically distance nole more and more from fed and rafa!
GoatNo1
Legend
5 of 6 being RG there they also played 7 out of those 10 matches!And Nadal still won 6 of his last 10 matches against Djokovic in majors
nole won 7 out of last 13 (7 out of 13 was RG): 2 AOs, 2 RGs, 2 Ws and 1 USO!
abmk
Bionic Poster
if we're talking about primes, difficulty = nadal > federer > djokovic
if career, federer > nadal > djokovic
since nadal also got to feast quite a lot in CIE.
and nadal was good on grass in 06/07 at Wim.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
That’s exactly the key point. It is better to have the easy path when you are at your prime. Nadal had easy competition in last years if his career but he wasn’t prime himself, therefore injury driven and had at least Novak as a (slightly) younger and better player beside him. Federer was peak/prime when he had his time (relatively) free from the other two so he could clear. If peak Nadal would have played in the CIE he would have completely dominated as well but during his peak years he had to battle Fed and Djoko.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Is it though? Surely it's better to have easier draws when your own level is lesser.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
When you are young and peak you tend to be more consistent and less injury prone so I think it is easier to maintain this constant whole year dominance with 2-3 slams. When older and past peak some weird losses here and there or slams being missed due to injury becomes more likely. In Nadal’s case, sure he won some slams in a very easy era towards the end of his career, but since he had Nole who, while being old himself, was still closer to his prime, the era wasn’t so easy for him actually (relatively to his own level). Fed in 2004-2007, due to being at his peak was way further ahead of the field and also never missed a slam.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer was further ahead of the field because he was a lot stronger than post-prime Nadal rather than any better competition for the latter. IMO considering how much push back I had when I said Nadal on clay wasn't that far ahead of Fed on grass, I find the idea that Nadal had much harder (or just clearly harder) competition than Fed a bit contradictory considering that Fed had to face Nadal on clay, which would be tougher than Fed on grass.
Nadal actually had his most consistent year in 2019 because the competition was so weak. I think there's merits to both sides of the argument. For me Fed's competition in his peak is quite underrated. The big picture argument about there being no prime ATG, for at least part of Fed's peak, is true, but it misses so much of the era including a lot of great performances from other players. While the opposite statement about Nadal having Fed and Djokovic - misses the fact that neither are at their best on clay and Djokovic in particular underperformed in a lot of big matches outside of 2011 and pre-2015. All of which closes the prime gap quite a bit and certainly doesn't close the gap in their post-prime competition enough IMO.
But Nadal barely vultured. He was winning the 14 FO regardless of competition.
Angrybirdstar
Professional
unfortunately that's the nature of power users' privileges on forums. flirting vs harassment meme and so on
you're wrong with your analytical framework and some details here (but then that's 99% of ppl so it's whatevs), but you're right about the core (Murray as ATG), and you should get to be forceful and petty without people demanding meekness
i was in the Murray trenches in your first thread; if you didn't see that before, it might be entertaining or interesting to you. imo Murray is a lot like Nastase in that from a historical perspective, they Need to be understood as ATGs, and people perceiving their various embarrassing Slam performances as overshadowing the rest of their accomplishments is at least as silly as discounting those embarrassments
if the only thing you ever do on these forums is bully Razer then you will have my undying support
off the top of my head r/tennis and Twitter both do this with varying degrees of seriousness
wrt '04-'07 yearly strength i genuinely don't see any reasonable arguments against them being good, good, weak, and great respectively
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, actually the reverse. When you are at prime, you can raise your level vs other ATGs to win. when post prime, you can't (mostly). You come across a prime level ATG, you are done. (mostly). example: fed in Wim 15, AO 16.
nadal in 05-07 is clearly more of a problem that ancient djokovic (post AO 19) vs same competition.
fed-nadal faced off 8 times in slams in 05-09 in slams (fed prime from 04-09). even if we take only peak, 04-07, fedal faced off 5 times in slams
djoko-nadal faced off only 5 times in slams from 16-22. (AO 19, RG 20-22, Wim 18)
lets not forget peak nadal got an year free from fed/djoko in 10. (fed was past his prime after AO 10 and djoko was having his worst year from 07-16)
while he did have it tougher than fed at prime, it was only by a little.
also what @NatF said "but it misses so much of the era including a lot of great performances from other players. "
Last edited:
GoatNo1
Legend
i dont know. he is indeed the king of clay BUT e needed only 1 top20 wins for his 2 last USO for example and all we know that his last AO would probably never happen if not for strictly political influence and deportation of clearly best player with that time and the biggest favorit!
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Nadal really enjoyed that vultured title. One could not see any remorse in his eyes. He was like "glad novak is not here, who cares what happened to him? Lets collect an AO while he is away as there is no better opportunity than now... " .... Rafa seemed double happy in Novak's absence that tournament. Lot of people including me did not like that.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
All was right with the universe, he had no business with only 1AO lol
GoatNo1
Legend
YES it and his comments at that time was really woeful. his fans was realy celebrating all that happened to nole (as he you answered prove with his comment) and call rafa the GOAT after that tournament. and was in ecstasy after RG22 knowing nole was banned from USO and was unsure for W. they was even celebrating 3 years ban at OZ that nole got at that time. BUT karma is the ***** i guess!
Razer
G.O.A.T.
If you think from a neutral perspective then Nadal should have only 1 AO.
Look at this way, Federer was a loser against Nadal at FO everytime and he gor 1 FO .... The Bull was a loser at AO against Djokovic everytime .... Do you think it is fair that he gets to win a second AO while Fed never got his second FO ? ... Now don't tell me Nadal got close to beating Djokovic in 2012, IMO that one does not count because Murray had already softened Novak in SF and the conditions favoured Nadal and yet he fell short, Novak is that good in Australia. Novak's better versions of 2011 or 2013 or 2019 would have all beaten that Nadal comprehensively. So unless you can argue for Federer deserving a second french open, there is no argument for Nadal being stuck on 1 being a bad thing. When you cannot beat the best player at a slam then you get stuck at 1 for good reason. Nadal winning 2 wimbledons is well deserved but not AO.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Federer fans were relatively more sympathetic to Novak's plight at that timee. Yes they too criticized him but I rem many Nadal fans were happy on Novak's ban. Things changed in 2023 for Djokovic, he got invited back to Australia and then he finished the job in 2023 end. Good that he did because Sinner arrived in 2024 and he would have got stuck. He still has to win 25 to break tie with Court but I guess at least he won the race on the ATP circuit which is good. Even if he fails to win 25 he won't be that upset about it.... however I feel he should get 25 set a new benchmark.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Would be nice if he reached 25 but he doesn’t need to to set himself apart from Court. Men and women records should be viewed separately. When Pete had the slam record at mere 14, nobody cared that Court had ten more than him.
GoatNo1
Legend
potencial match would be in 2022. and rafa did not won a single SET vs nole on HC since USO13. he had 9 matches and 19 consecutive sets lose streak at that moment vs nole on HC. and they would play on noles most but rafas least successful slam court!
zagor
Bionic Poster
True, Pete was not young Fed's rival/competition. Some of that is on Pete, he could have stuck around but he lost the motivation.
Agassi was past it (it wasn't 1995 Agassi) but his GOAT ballstriking still allowed him to be a decent threat. I also disagree on him not being on big three level when he was playing his best tennis.
Agassi was a special, unique player. He lacked focus and dedication but when he was on, he was an amazing player who won a Career Slam when it was far, far tougher to do so (don't think Nadal would have smelled a Wimbledon title in the 90s conditions).
He reached 2 Wimbledons finals in a row in 2006/2007 (and 2008). The only other period in which he reached multiple WImbledon finals in a row was 2010/2011.
2006/2007 Nadal was much better on grass than "prime beastly" 2012-2013 Nadal who lost to Rosol and Darcis in the 1st week.
D
Deleted member 827468
Guest
nadal and djoko at their worst slams (nadal at ao and wimby and djoko at rg) both pushed the king of the tourney to five sets, whereas fred didnt do it (at rg), so maybe its kinda a reward for doing that, i.e. you did it so here is your second title, who knows who knows
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
He was very good but even his best was not on big three level. He had a very good base level on all surfaces therefore could win a CGS when it really mattered but he didn’t have an incredible ceiling on any surface. What would you say was his best tournament/match ever? I don’t think it could rival the best of any of the big three.
Yeah therefore I said he was “mostly” only a threat on clay. On HC he wasn’t a threat in any of 2004-2007, on grass he wasn’t in 2004 and 2005. In 2006 he was good but still very green and, while better than the rest, not really a threat to peak Federer. In 2007 of course he was.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Not just that, he was also aided and willed on by the umpire in the QF match against Shapo. He was being allowed to take as much as he want between serves and when Shapo (rihghtfully) called out the umpire for being corrupt, his complaint was dismissed in a pretty crappy manner. It was almost akin to giving you 20 seconds to get off the canvas in boxing.
Generally speaking, for all the talk about Fed being the establishment and Nadal the rebel pirate or whatever, I don't think I've ever seen a player being aided by the powers at be in tennis more than Nadal. From being allowed to constantly go over the time limit, slowing down Wimbledon conditions, ridiculous draws from 2008-2012 (where Fedovic were always drawn in the same half). He was the most establishment champion I've ever seen.
Heck Fed (one of the fastest players) was hit with the time limit violation in his last match ever at the FO lol. Nadal took 50 seconds on a BP whenever he felt like it and umpires would just stay mum.
Last edited:
Angrybirdstar
Professional
never ask questions about hard court conditions in/near Nadal's prime vs the rest of history and what it tells us...
zagor
Bionic Poster
1995 season Agassi overall was big 3 (or very close to it) level for me. He just faced very strong and deep competition.
Reaching two Wimbledons in a row is not a "mostly only a threat on clay" in my book, it's no small feat. Regardless if it's Nadal or anyone else. Especially considering my point how 2012/2013 Nadal who's seen as fully matured, completely sucked on grass in comparison.
I know the TTW narrative is that 2006 and 2007 was baby Nadal but I don't subscribe to that view personally, I think Nadal peaked on natural surfaces and HC at different stages in his career. I view 2006 Wimbledon as a part of his grasscourt prime and 2007 as a part of his grass peak.
2005 sure, even though he did win Madrid (his only big indoor title ever) and Canada. He wasn't a threat in slams outside FO.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Agassi on HC was great.
Best tournament ever in a slam - definitely AO 95. smashed everyone before final and took prime Sampras out in 4.
Angrybirdstar
Professional
i would also shout-out Wimbly '92 for Agassi peak, absolutely ridiculous returning and passing match in match out
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Had Nadal faced Djokovic at AO 22 and lost then it could have affected his mindset for the French open as well with Djokovic on 21 and him on 20 instead of the reverse which Gave Nadal more confidence. Scott Morrison not only robbed Novak of a slam but he might have robbed novak of 2 in the process and indirectly hurt Federer too because otherwise Rafa might have been stuck on 20.
In an ideal world Federer should have won wimbledon 19, Djoker should have played AO 22 and USO 2022, not been disqualified from uso 2020. Nadal benefitted from all these events somehow.
true but lets not forget when pete had 14, graf had 22 and court had 24, those 2 legends from 70/80s had 18 each... so all these benchmarks were touched by ladies first ... by that logic number 25 should be touched by novak since court touched 24 before...
AO 2022 was a very disgraceful toxic slam in our history.... a minister from the govt openly said she hoped Nadal won .... that was as if they all wanted novak to be behind rafa in slams again.... it was as rigged a slam as it could ever be IMO
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
He was definitely not baby in 2007. In 2006 though it was only his 6th tournament on grass or so and Fed beat him convincingly even bageled him. Even if we give him 2006, this means that in the whole 2004-2007 period Nadal was only a threat outside clay on two occasions (and in 2004 wasn’t even on clay), so I think the “mostly” still stands.
Not sure. He won only one slam and three masters. He did face tough competition, but even in the first half of the year he lost to Enqvist, Courier, Chang, Bruguera and got straight-setted by Pete in IW. He lost to Kafelnikov at the French. I give him the Becker and Sampras losses at Wimbledon and the USO, but even in 95 I think when going by ABSOLUTE peak level I would say Pete’s best (Indian Wells and US Open) was better than Andre’s. It definitely cannot match the very best big three seasons (Fed in 2004-2007 or Djokovic in 2011).
zagor
Bionic Poster
Good point. Beat Becker, JMac and Goran (who beat Pete that year) on the run to the title, on fast dead bouncing grass of the 90s.
90s tennis was just different, with such contrasted conditions between tourneys and the 16th seed system, it was just a tougher game in some respects.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Federer pushed nadal to mp in Rome over 5 sets
Federer defeated Djokovic at the french in his peak 2011
So maybe?
Look I am also ready to agree that Fed should be on 0 french if you think he never deserved 09 slam in absence of nadal but same should be for ao2022.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Deleted member 775898
- General Pro Player Discussion
