Who of big 3 is most gifted?

Who is most gifted in hitting a yellow fuzzy ball?

  • Fed

  • Rafa

  • Nole

Results are only viewable after voting.
AnOctorokForDinner said:
The last paragraph highlights the logical knot sharply indeed. Either the B3 are equals and it's ok for fred to lose to his equals with age working against him, or he is the superior specimen who underperformed in close tussles as a mental weakness.

I do believe the latter, as awesome as Djokodal legitimately are Federer is still something else. I feel like Federer is truly the realistically perfect player except for this close matches thing, of course he's not totally perfect otherwise but it's not humanly possible so Fed comes as close as possible. Likewise, Nadal is the (realistically) perfect clay courter, Sampras is perfectly clutch, McEnroe has the perfect short-term peak.
Click to expand...
What is not fair is that we tend to judge the longevity of older players by the longevity of present players, and I just think that is unfair.
 
federer’s highlight reel makes him an easy answer. BUT i think the things these guys do on court are of course dictated by the style of play they were taught. i’m a fed fan but there’s no question in my mind that if nadal had been taught federer’s mechanics etc, that he’d be capable of producing similar magic on court. he’s an insane natural athlete and has great hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
vex said:
If he had chosen a 2HBH rather than a 1 I shudder to think of what he could have been.
Click to expand...

I am not a tennis scientist but I disagree on this. The 2HBH worked for many tennis players, who used to be weak or short or both in their younger years but it might influence the ability of shotmaking, movement and other aspects of the game for natural backhanders. Federer can hit some deadly longline shots, difficult crosses, great lobs and has the touch for hitting stop balls. I think you lose more control and your touch, if you use a 2HBH permanently, when you are in a position to hit certain shots from different angles - not to mention that you probably don't slice as much anymore, which can be crucial in certain moments as well. I don't know if Federer would have been more successful with a 2HBH but I am sure as hell that there is no way people would call him the best talent in that case.
 
True Fanerer said:
Are you trying to say that Djokovic is a better shotmaker than Federer? Lol.

He's really good at stretching and turning defense into offense. He hits a lot of deep balls in the middle of the court. That's what he does mostly. Of course he hits some winners, but nothing close to Federer when it comes to hitting the ball PAST his opponent.
Click to expand...
Djokovic is way better at creating angles than Federer. That's what I was saying. Federer and Djokovic are the 2 best shotmakers in history, but overall yes, Federer is better.
 
I would probably say Fed, coming from a Nole fan. The fluidity of his game and longevity is simply amazing, particularly his offensiveness. He makes it look quite effortless.
Nole and Rafa, are also great athletes but have have had to rely on their defense and to some extent 'grinding' approach to tennis.
 
Nadal is the most natural athlete. Fed has mentioned it a few times in interviews even.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
True Fanerer said:
He has a natural advantage having a 2hbh. Other than that it's what I stated above.
Click to expand...
2hbh is not a natural advantage for creating angles, 1hbh is.
2hbh has advantage for ROS, stability, absorbing the power, high contact top spin drives.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
The last paragraph highlights the logical knot sharply indeed. Either the B3 are equals and it's ok for fred to lose to his equals with age working against him, or he is the superior specimen who underperformed in close tussles as a mental weakness.

I do believe the latter, as awesome as Djokodal legitimately are Federer is still something else. I feel like Federer is truly the realistically perfect player except for this close matches thing, of course he's not totally perfect otherwise but it's not humanly possible so Fed comes as close as possible. Likewise, Nadal is the (realistically) perfect clay courter, Sampras is perfectly clutch, McEnroe has the perfect short-term peak.
Click to expand...
I would really like to see how many close 5 setters between players of similar caliber have been won by the player who was closer to his peak and/or moved better. I think that would put a lot of things to bed. Federer has played an absolutely disproportionate number of 5 setters past his peak against elite opposition who are fitter than him. Much more than all the other tier 1 ATGs combined, in fact. (Borg and Djokovic none, Nadal 2, Sampras 2 and that's stretching it because one of the opponents in question is 19 year old Fed, Federer 5, 6 if you count AO 17). If you count AO 17, Fed is the only one to actually win a match like that. You don't think this has an affect on the perception? It should not in the slightest be held against what Federer could do in his peak just because he got closer to winning those matches than anyone thought he could. You would think Nadal's repeated 5 set failures over the last few years, some of them against some lower tier opponents, would have woken people up that there's much less to this than they want to believe.
 
BlueB said:
2hbh is not a natural advantage for creating angles, 1hbh is.
2hbh has advantage for ROS, stability, absorbing the power, high contact top spin drives.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I never said it was. I was referring to shotmaking in general.
 
metsman said:
I would really like to see how many close 5 setters between players of similar caliber have been won by the player who was closer to his peak and/or moved better. I think that would put a lot of things to bed. Federer has played an absolutely disproportionate number of 5 setters past his peak against elite opposition who are fitter than him. Much more than all the other tier 1 ATGs combined, in fact. (Borg and Djokovic none, Nadal 2, Sampras 2 and that's stretching it because one of the opponents in question is 19 year old Fed, Federer 5, 6 if you count AO 17). If you count AO 17, Fed is the only one to actually win a match like that. You don't think this has an affect on the perception? It should not in the slightest be held against what Federer could do in his peak just because he got closer to winning those matches than anyone thought he could. You would think Nadal's repeated 5 set failures over the last few years, some of them against some lower tier opponents, would have woken people up that there's much less to this than they want to believe.
Click to expand...

Federer had the skillset to finish most of those matches in four sets despite the physical gap before he got tired and the gap widened. Wim 14 is the obvious exception and that's his least sad five-set loss because he never had a real chance. USO 11 is the other one that had to go five but half-throwing the fourth set provided some respite and no question Fred should've served it out.

You seem to be saying Fed's done well so no criticism shall be levied. Obviously he's done well enough seeing as he's still GOAT, but many more wins were so close. Why compare to other players when Federer is better? We're talking about one of the only few players in history whose skill is so good it can cover physical decline against the very best. If only Fed was better at peaking for the most important points (he's decent career-wise, but 'decent' shouldn't cut it for the goat), he could've been the ultimate GOAT with such a massive advantage over everyone else no remotely reasonable doubt could have been possible. I can say he underperformed if I really believe he's had the talent for it.
 
I go with Federer as the most talented of the big 3 but also with the weakest mindset of the big 3. Nadal and Djokovic are mentally stronger than Federer. And it's likely because of how much harder they had to work to reach #1 respectively. Federer never had to work all that hard to reach #1 compared to the other 2 guys. He relied purely on great talent and things fell into place. If Federer was a 19 year old kid coming up now and trying to make inroads on Nadal and Djokovic, he'd develop a fighter's mindset and understand slowly what it takes to be the best as he faces a ton of resistance against the top 2. He'd learn how to be a fighter on the court who'd fight for every point. But then again, his style might be different as he'd be developing a game more suited for slow courts. He had reached the top of the sport when courts weren't homogenized.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Federer had the skillset to finish most of those matches in four sets despite the physical gap before he got tired and the gap widened. Wim 14 is the obvious exception and that's his least sad five-set loss because he never had a real chance. USO 11 is the other one that had to go five but half-throwing the fourth set provided some respite and no question Fred should've served it out.

You seem to be saying Fed's done well so no criticism shall be levied. Obviously he's done well enough seeing as he's still GOAT, but many more wins were so close. Why compare to other players when Federer is better? We're talking about one of the only few players in history whose skill is so good it can cover physical decline against the very best. If only Fed was better at peaking for the most important points (he's decent career-wise, but 'decent' shouldn't cut it for the goat), he could've been the ultimate GOAT with such a massive advantage over everyone else no remotely reasonable doubt could have been possible. I can say he underperformed if I really believe he's had the talent for it.
Click to expand...
criticism should be levied in what happened with Nadal up to 09. After that, I don't really care (obviously USO 11 drove me up a wall but I mean looking back). He was in situations no one in history was in consistently, and still did pretty damn well. Multiple wins against both Djokodal in majors post-prime along with a bucketload of convincing B03 wins, multiple WTF, multiple stints at #1.
 
metsman said:
criticism should be levied in what happened with Nadal up to 09. After that, I don't really care (obviously USO 11 drove me up a wall but I mean looking back). He was in situations no one in history was in consistently, and still did pretty damn well. Multiple wins against both Djokodal in majors post-prime along with a bucketload of convincing B03 wins, multiple WTF, multiple stints at #1.
Click to expand...

"only peak matters"

Well I guess Tilden is the GOAT then, he had 1-4 losses per season at his best and later did quite well against the musketeers, von Kramm, Vines etc.

"that was woolpants era that cannot be seriously considered", right? very convenient, no?
 
I don't know if we would reach a consensus on the definition of "talent" - even "tennis talent" - but my inclination would be Federer.
However, the difference in talent among them is not that pronounced. They're all great athletes (perhaos, Rafa is the most natural "jock", but again, they all have power, speed, agility, etc.) and they have all have all the shots, and some improv ability on court.

I get impatient reading multiple posts blasting Fed's mental game, as if he hasn't shown himself to be incredibly mentally tough and resilient over the years.
And I get impatient reading lots of posts dismissing both Rafa and Novak's tremendous ability, as if they're only hard workers and grinders.
I truly wonder what people have been watching and analyzing all these years, though after about a year here, it doesn't surprise me.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
"only peak matters"

Well I guess Tilden is the GOAT then, he had 1-4 losses per season at his best and later did quite well against the musketeers, von Kramm, Vines etc.

"that was woolpants era that cannot be seriously considered", right? very convenient, no?
Click to expand...
09 was not peak. Peak/Prime matter, and post-prime does too only to the degree of showing you can compete with the younger guys which Federer has shown many times over.
 
Mike Sams said:
Give them all wooden racquets from the 1870s with animal-gut string and let them play each other.
Click to expand...

I still have my brother's old Garcia "woodie!" My favorite is still in a box from '75, A Volkl, first all fiberglass racket; orange with blue zebra stripes! You could see it from space! As expensive as it was back then, it didn't stop me from smackin' it on the ground or throwing it over the fence! I was certifiable! :cautious: :rolleyes: ;) :)
 
metsman said:
09 was not peak. Peak/Prime matter, and post-prime does too only to the degree of showing you can compete with the younger guys which Federer has shown many times over.
Click to expand...

By this lodgegg, the goat has to be Tilden or Gonzales for combining dominance with top longevity.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
By this lodgegg, the goat has to be Tilden or Gonzales for combining dominance with top longevity.
Click to expand...
If someone wants to claim that, sure, I won't pretend to know enough about that to argue, just that I do think that the global talent level and heterogeneity of the sport went up in the 70s. But I do know that the greatness of Laver is undeniable regardless.
 
Last edited:
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
Federer gifted the most matches from match points up so it has to be him, amirite?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
weakera said:
Roger is the most naturally talented and the least hard working and dedicated.
Click to expand...
Mike Sams said:
I go with Federer as the most talented of the big 3 but also with the weakest mindset of the big 3. Nadal and Djokovic are mentally stronger than Federer. And it's likely because of how much harder they had to work to reach #1 respectively. Federer never had to work all that hard to reach #1 compared to the other 2 guys. He relied purely on great talent and things fell into place. If Federer was a 19 year old kid coming up now and trying to make inroads on Nadal and Djokovic, he'd develop a fighter's mindset and understand slowly what it takes to be the best as he faces a ton of resistance against the top 2. He'd learn how to be a fighter on the court who'd fight for every point. But then again, his style might be different as he'd be developing a game more suited for slow courts. He had reached the top of the sport when courts weren't homogenized.
Click to expand...

I think Feds fitness and hard work ethic is way underrated. Just look at those 30+? rallies against nole one of the fittest players ever in wimb 5th set... fed running from corner to corner, offens to defence and even won some of those rallies... then barely breathing going to serve and playing the next point. And that at almost 38 years of age.

Or look at aus open 17, where he beat kei, stan, and rafa in 5 sets. U cant be that fit without working really hard.

I think the guy is working way harder than most of us think. He just never talks about it. Never talks about diet, running up mountains etc.
 
junior74 said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Just watched a You Tube telecast reporting on Fed and this past Wimbledon! It's been estimated between Nadovic, they gave up about 8 matches with MP's; Fed's coughed up 22! It was mused that he probably should have at least 28 majors by now but for these hiccups when in control of a big match! The obvious ones have been against Nole; '10 USO SF, '11 USO SF, & now '19 Wimbledon! Roger had at least 2 MP's and serving in each of these! :censored: :unsure: :cautious: ;)
 
Federer definitely seems the most talented since he's always talking about how he doesn't practice much, even in his younger years
 
I love Novak but his skills around net are laughable compared to his overall success and abilities.

Nadal is the best out of 3 around net. Better than Fed. And he has better sense when to rush the net.

Overall I would still say Novak. Weighted avg of all tennis components would be the highest. Clutch is on top of my list.
 
Gary Duane said:
But it depends on the definition of gifted. I'm a pianist. My hands stretch to 11ths, meaning I can and always could play a lot of stuff most people can't play.

With Novak's stretching ability and movement, his abilities in that area are as gifted as they could be. Any time a player can do things that no one else can do, that's a gift. So the top players are all gifted in their own ways.

But I do think it came more easily to Roger. I don't deny his hard work, but things just seem more effortless. That, unfortunately, does not include the gift of winning the most important point more than others.
Click to expand...
Gary, what does this mean?
"My hands stretch to 11ths"

Thanks.
 
BobFL said:
Nadal is the best out of 3 around net. Better than Fed. And he has better sense when to rush the net.
Click to expand...

Yes, about 12 times per year. Nadal never serves and volleys and comes in on sitters. I’m sure you think Nadal is also better at the net than Mac and Edberg, based on your criterion.
 
Thetouch said:
I am not a tennis scientist but I disagree on this. The 2HBH worked for many tennis players, who used to be weak or short or both in their younger years but it might influence the ability of shotmaking, movement and other aspects of the game for natural backhanders. Federer can hit some deadly longline shots, difficult crosses, great lobs and has the touch for hitting stop balls. I think you lose more control and your touch, if you use a 2HBH permanently, when you are in a position to hit certain shots from different angles - not to mention that you probably don't slice as much anymore, which can be crucial in certain moments as well. I don't know if Federer would have been more successful with a 2HBH but I am sure as hell that there is no way people would call him the best talent in that case.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is much argument that the weakest part of Fed's game is his BH. Compare Nadal v. Djoker/Fed. Speaks for itself. He'd have won more slams with his talent applied to a 2HBH
 
vex said:
I don't think there is much argument that the weakest part of Fed's game is his BH. Compare Nadal v. Djoker/Fed. Speaks for itself. He'd have won more slams with his talent applied to a 2HBH
Click to expand...

I know and that's why I said he might have been more successful but a 2HBH doesn't make you look more effortless and elegant. Maybe Federer's whole game would be different. I can't imagine Edberg or McEnroe using a 2HBH and still playing serve and volley for some reason, let alone being called elegant players
 
  • Like
Reactions: vex
FailBetter said:
I think Feds fitness and hard work ethic is way underrated. Just look at those 30+? rallies against nole one of the fittest players ever in wimb 5th set... fed running from corner to corner, offens to defence and even won some of those rallies... then barely breathing going to serve and playing the next point. And that at almost 38 years of age.

Or look at aus open 17, where he beat kei, stan, and rafa in 5 sets. U cant be that fit without working really hard.

I think the guy is working way harder than most of us think. He just never talks about it. Never talks about diet, running up mountains etc.
Click to expand...
I was referring to mindset and psychology in the most tense situations like Break Points. 4/23 against Djokovic at US Open 2015 wasn't very impressive. Nor was 1/17 against Nadal at 2007 French. Or 1/12 at Wimby 2008 final.
 
What the heck?? The poll is completely lopsided for Federer. I thought there would be far more votes for Nadal and Djokovic from the Nadal and Djokovic fans??
 
Russeljones said:
Gary, what does this mean?
"My hands stretch to 11ths"

Thanks.
Click to expand...
A 10th is like C to E, two more than an octave. In intervals you count the starting and ending note. The are some top pianists who can't reach that far. I can stretch from C to F. Most people who stretch that far have really big hands, which then are clumsy for fitting between the black keys. I've taught students as tall as 6'4" who can't stretch as I can. It has to so with the way the fingers open out.
 
in pure shotmaking abilities, Federer is light years ahead of anyone else who has ever played the game. What this guy can do with the ball is beyond crazy.

incredible touch, incredible variety, incredible timing
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
  • Poll Poll
So who is the most improved top 30 level player in the last 3 years?
Replies
13
Views
704
cc0509
cc0509
RaulRamirez
What are the most UNDERRATED aspects of each of The Big 3?
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
EnglishNadal
EnglishNadal
G
Who are the most TALENTED / UNTALENTED pros??
2
Replies
77
Views
6K
Einstand
E
S
  • Poll Poll
Who was the most frustrating to watch of the Big 3
Replies
28
Views
968
Vincent-C
Vincent-C
Winner Sinner
  • Poll Poll
Who is the most mentally solid player of the post-big three generations?
2
Replies
96
Views
2K
Aabye5
Aabye5
Back
Top