Who Faced the harder challenge to overcome ? (Djokovic vs Fedal) or (Federer vs Djokodal) ?

[zagor]

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.

The way I see it:

2004 - wasn't a threat anywhere, Miami loss notwithstanding.

2005 - was a threat on clay, a huge one though. 2005 Rafa was a speed demon that FO.

2006 and 2007 - was a threat on both grass and clay.

With the benefit of hindsight of looking at this whole career, 2006 Wimbledon Nadal was good on grass. He did something say 2012 and 2013 just Nadal couldn't do.

Yes it was only his 6th grasscourt tourney or whatever but I feel Nadal matured and peaked on natural surfaces early. Being young in tennis is only seen today as such a detriment because we've been so used to old farts dominating the last lackluster few gens. You saw what Alcaraz did at such a young age, he didn't defer to tennis experts' wisdom about needing to be like 25 in today's game to mature as a player and win big titles.

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).

I don't think the big 3 ever faced that level of depth and competition in any of their dominant years, I'd say just by going on level of play if 1995 Agassi coincided with some of the softer years he would have had one of the all-time great seasons. He was playing slam winning caliber tennis IMO in all of AO, WImbledon and USO.

He injured his hip against Kafelnikov IIRC, Becker played some ridiculous tennis in that WImbledon match to do a comeback and Pete was just too good at shutting down Agassi on faster surfaces. IMO Pete was not just a better overall player than Dre but also a bad match-up for him, Agassi's greatest strength was punishing 2nd serves and exploiting player's movement with his groundies, Pete had the GOAT 2nd serve and was one of the fastest guys on tour.

Even then, it's debatable to me whether Pete's peak level at USO that year was better than Dre's AO. He did avenge that IW loss in Miami and Canada after.

Consider Agassi was overall 53-3 on HC in 1995 and reached the final in all the 10 HC tourneys he played. He probably overplayed in NA HC season going in that USO.

Generally speaking I feel that the big 3's peak levels are overrated when compared to other ATGs. It's their consistency and longevity where they are exceptional (though aided by the many circumstances of the modern tennis), plenty of ATGs played ball on a comparable level on their best day IMO.

 

[GoatNo1]

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I don't think the big 3 ever faced that level of depth and competition in any of their dominant years, I'd say just by going on level of play if 1995 Agassi coincided with some of the softer years he would have had one of the all-time great seasons. He was playing slam winning caliber tennis IMO in all of AO, WImbledon and USO.

This is all correct but we are comparing to the best of the best here. In case of Djokovic it would be 2011. I love the 95 season just like the next guy, it was my first year as a tennis fan and to this day I maintain the view that it was the greatest season until today. However, a peak Nadal, a very good Fed showing prime level on many occasions and a strong Murray, can this really be (considerably) worse than what Agassi faced in 95? Sure there was more depth and sure the polarised conditions and 16 seed system made it harder but on the flip-side, as far as very top competition goes, Djoko had it harder. His domination that year was far above Andre’s who didn’t even end the year as No.1 (admittedly it was his own fault).

As for level of play: I can’t see any match of Andre in 95 a la Krajicek W 96 QF where I would say this was such an incredible level that it would match with the very best of big three. His best wins on paper were the AO final and the USO SF.

While Pete could deliver some very high peak even on slow HC, the AO still is his second worst slam, and especially in this final he wasn’t particularly great due to Gullickson’s sickness (even Andre admitted that in his book). Nevertheless he had set-points to go up 2-1 in sets so it is not that Andre steamrolled him.

Even then, it's debatable to me whether Pete's peak level at USO that year was better than Dre's AO. He did avenge that IW loss in Miami and Canada after.

He did, but IW was Bo5 and a straight-set 7-5, 6-3, 7-5 against a very well playing Agassi. Miami and Canada were both Bo3 where Andre lost the first set in both and in Miami it went to a third set breaker. The IW performance by Pete was way more impressive imho.

Consider Agassi was overall 53-3 on HC in 1995 and reached the final in all the 10 HC tourneys he played. He probably overplayed in NA HC season going in that USO.

Of course great stuff, on the other hand he didn’t even win one tournament outside HC. So even if we concede his level on HC was close to peak Big three, his showings on clay, grass and carpet were not nearly as impressive.

plenty of ATGs played ball on a comparable level on their best day IMO.

I agree 100% here. Even non-ATGs did see Krajicek, Soderling, Safin etc.

 

[GoatNo1]

 

[NatF]

wrt '04-'07 yearly strength i genuinely don't see any reasonable arguments against them being good, good, weak, and great respectively

I think this is fair.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

1995 Agassi vs 2011 Djokovic

Indoors: Both sucked. Djokovic did little better after the USO but Agassi won San Jose so maybe a tie.
Outdoor HC: Djokovic won both HC slams while Agassi won one and reached the final of the other. Advantage Djokovic
Both won three of the four HC masters while reaching the final of the fourth. Djokovic beat Fed and Nadal (twice) but lost to Murray. Agassi beat Pete twice and lost once to him. Literally a tie.
Agassi won two more outdoor HC tournaments (New Haven and Washington), Djokovic won only Dubai. Slight advantage Agassi.
Competition: Djokovic was 4-0 against Fed (2-0 in slams), 3-0 against Nadal (1-0 in slams) and 1-1 vs Murray (1-0 in slams).
Agassi was 3-2 against Pete (1-1 in slams but 1-2 in Bo5), 0-1 against Courier, 1-0 against Becker and 1-0 against Chang. Advantage Djokovic
Grass: Djokovic by a fair margin
Clay: Djokovic by a big margin.

Level-wise I don’t see which of Agassi’s matches were so great that it would rival Djokovic’s best performances in 2011. Especially not in number.

 

[mike danny]

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.

And he hadn’t won a slam in 2 years at that point

 

[mike danny]

That’s exactly the key point. It is better to have the easy path when you are at your prime.

Is it though? Prime/peak Fed would have been good enough to beat just about anyone on HC/grass. Old Djokodal not even close.

 

[mike danny]

I find it funny when people say Nadal was still a zygote on grass in 2006 because it was only his 5th or 6th grass tourney ever, but Alcaraz gets no such labels when he won Wimb at 20.

Also Djoko didn’t have an all surface ATG for much longer than 2020-2023

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Is it though? Prime/peak Fed would have been good enough to beat just about anyone on HC/grass. Old Djokodal not even close.

When you are peak and get lower competition you can clear with 3 slams per year. When you have another GOAT candidate next to you while being peak you can’t and when you get the weak field while being yourself post prime you can of course vulture and win more slams than you should at your age but still not to the same extent than when peak.
Imagine Nadal wouldn’t have had to deal with Djokovic in 2011, he would likely have won three slams again, four more masters and also the first two slams in 2012, hence would have had a real “era” (especially considering that he won again two in 2013).
In the 2017-2022 period where he was post prime let’s face it, even if we take Djokovic out, he wouldn’t have had the same success even though the overall competition was way weaker.
Put peak Nadal in 2004-2007 instead of Fed and he wins all four FO, at least two Wimbledon, at least two USO and also an AO (I admit though the caveat here is that we never really had a period of four years where Nadal was great on both hard and grass).

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I find it funny when people say Nadal was still a zygote on grass in 2006 because it was only his 5th or 6th grass tourney ever, but Alcaraz gets no such labels when he won Wimb at 20.

Also Djoko didn’t have an all surface ATG for much longer than 2020-2023

Don’t get me wrong here (in case you refer to my post). He was already great and better than every other year after 2011 except 2018 and (maybe) 2019, but he wasn’t yet on his 2007/2008 level and not yet ready to really challenge a grass GOAT in the middle of his reign.

 

[Mustard]

And he hadn’t won a slam in 2 years at that point

Nor had Djokovic in well over a year. Federer had 7 Wimbledon titles at the time at age 32, while Djokovic had 1 Wimbledon title at age 27.

 

[mike danny]

Nor had Djokovic in well over a year. Federer had 7 Wimbledon titles at the time at age 32, while Djokovic had 1 Wimbledon title at age 27.

Fed hadn’t even reached slam finals or won any big titles up to that point.

But nice try

 

[mike danny]

When you are peak and get lower competition you can clear with 3 slams per year. When you have another GOAT candidate next to you while being peak you can’t and when you get the weak field while being yourself post prime you can of course vulture and win more slams than you should at your age but still not to the same extent than when peak.
Imagine Nadal wouldn’t have had to deal with Djokovic in 2011, he would likely have won three slams again, four more masters and also the first two slams in 2012, hence would have had a real “era” (especially considering that he won again two in 2013).
In the 2017-2022 period where he was post prime let’s face it, even if we take Djokovic out, he wouldn’t have had the same success even though the overall competition was way weaker.
Put peak Nadal in 2004-2007 instead of Fed and he wins all four FO, at least two Wimbledon, at least two USO and also an AO (I admit though the caveat here is that we never really had a period of four years where Nadal was great on both hard and grass).

But in your peak/prime you still stand a chance against better competition which is the main differentiator

 

[mike danny]

Don’t get me wrong here (in case you refer to my post). He was already great and better than every other year after 2011 except 2018 and (maybe) 2019, but he wasn’t yet on his 2007/2008 level and not yet ready to really challenge a grass GOAT in the middle of his reign.

That’s different from saying he was only good on clay

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

That’s different from saying he was only good on clay

When did I say that?