Why do Federer and Nadal fans ignore all of the evidence?

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Great post. Hope you don't mind me saying, my view is Djokovic out of the three is mentally the most suspect in the biggest occasions which has cost him now not being GOAT. At his best he has no weakness at all. Nadal and Federer do have weaknesses more obvious to attack. No disrespect to Wawrinka but Djokovic should never be losing to wawrinka at a major final.

Game has missed him this year.
Thanks. It's funny because at times he's looked more mentally strong but he's gone through periods of folding under pressure when he's looked the better player on paper. In 2011 he was incredible at holding his nerve, as was he in the 2012 AO final and several other important matches, but there are a few big losses such as the RG semi with Nadal in I think 2013? Would have probably won had it not been for making contact with the net. His USO record is a big mark as well with 5 losses, the one to Federer was to be expected but the one vs Murray was bad, considering he narrowly lost the first 2 sets then stormed through the next 2 only to run out of gas in the 5th. His loss to Murray at Wimbledon despite leading in each set. His loss to Nadal in 2013 USO when he looked like he was sure to break for a 2 sets to 1 lead. His loss to Wawrinka in RG and USO are not exactly dreadful because Stan played some amazing tennis but he allowed Stan back into the matches.

It's like when he;s in his best form he's great in all departments but when he's not, he makes bad decisions and somehow loses matches he could have won. I think really his abilty is great, his mind has always been the problem and though he's patched things up, it's not a lasting fix. I think deep down he's not got quite as much belief and Federer and Nadal which is why it took him until 2011 to realise his potential.
 

peakin11mugs

Semi-Pro
Peak for peak and prime for prime; Nadal is the best, Federer the greatest, and Djokovic the most complete.

Nadal being the best is like that of a beast; when physically tuned he is least likely to ever lose. the effort required to defeat him is monumental.

Federer as the greatest is the result of mastery and acumen on a level that can make effort seem rather unnecessary.

and Djokovic's completeness is a result of technical excellence that results in superlative simplicity.
That doesn’t have to be a hypothetical debate. Peak for peak djoker nadal clashed and nadal lost 7-0. The very best physically peaked version of nadal could not beat djoker on clay, hard, grass, fast, slow, low bounce, high bounce

Nadal hasn’t beaten djoker at AO but djoker has beaten nadal AO, FO, WIMB, US, WTF, all masters

So clearly it’s more difficult for nadal to beat djoker than other way round and in many tournaments he simply hasn’t and can’t beat djoker which isn’t the case for djoker anywhere

Nadal has also lost too many big matches to get that big match player title e.g WIMB 07, AO 2012, 17 many big ones 2011 and countless single matches or finals where records were on the line and taken by rivals e.g his clay streak or his masters sets or WTF finals
 
Last edited:

Polvorin

Professional
Djokovic's era was so tough his biggest competitors for much of his peak were 5-years-past-his-prime Papa Federer and all-time-great Muzzah. :rolleyes:

In all seriousness, how do "weak era" proponents not see that for much of Nadal and especially Djokovic's dominant periods, literally their greatest/only real competition was a "fraud" who only won a bunch of slams thanks to said weak era, or so the story goes?

If the Nadal and Djokovic era was full of such strong players, why did Fed and the 30+ crowd (weak era players) fare so well against them long after their collective peak?
 
Last edited:

DRII

G.O.A.T.
That doesn’t have to be a hypothetical debate. Peak for peak djoker nadal clashed and nadal lost 7-0. The very best physically peaked version of nadal could not beat djoker on clay, hard, grass, fast, slow, low bounce, high bounce

Nadal hasn’t beaten djoker at AO but djoker has beaten nadal AO, FO, WIMB, US, WTF, all masters

So clearly it’s more difficult for nadal to beat djoker than other way round and in many tournaments he simply hasn’t and can’t beat djoker which isn’t the case for djoker anywhere

Nadal has also lost too many big matches e.g WIMB 07, AO 2012, 17 many big ones 2011 and countless records taken by rivals e.g his clay streak or his masters sets or WTF finals
 

peakin11mugs

Semi-Pro
Federer and Nadal. Two of the all-time greats. No doubt about it. But why are their fans so unwilling to believe the evidence of, not only the stats, but their own eyes and own lived experience.

FEDERER -his longevity is incredible. He is a beautiful and graceful tennis player. No one could argue otherwise. But it is beyond question that he took advantage of a very weak era in tennis to hoover up major after major. Look at the facts about his opponents up to 2008.

When Nadal and Djokovic reached maturity he stopped winning slams with such regularity. He continued to win the odd one, sure, but in the big slam meetings with Nadal and Djokovic he was regularly defeated. He is 3-9 to Nadal in slam meetings and 6-9 to Djokovic (2-8 in their last ten meetings!) 9 wins in 27 slam matches against your biggest rivals? Are these really the stats of the greatest player of all time? When you have such a miserable record in slams against not one, but TWO of your biggest rivals? When you only start winning again when Djokovic is injured?

I mean, take off the Fed-shaped specs and look at the facts objectively. There is much of the modern day Emerson about him. He hoovered up titles when the opposition was weak. That is why total slams can only ever be part of the measure. To deny it is to place Emerson above Laver.

His inability to win the Grand Slam also is a definite black mark against his claims to GOAT-ness. One slam on clay simply doesn't cut it.

NADAL -a brilliant competitor. The heart of a lion. A will to never give up, the likes of which we've not seen since the glory days of Jimbo. And he moved the game forward with his demolitions of the previous best player in the world, Federer. But the facts don't lie. His skills failed to translate fully to anything other than clay courts. Sure, at his uninjured peak he matched or defeated Federer on most surfaces other than indoor hard, but when Djokovic sorted out his head and his stamina, Nadal had no answer. He was left playing catch-up as Djokovic started to defeat him on surface after surface, culminating in the beat-down in Paris.

He has done incredibly well to come back from injury, but he is a shadow of the player he was. Like Federer, he has taken advantage of the most depleted field in tennis history to nab two majors, but does anyone really think that it is as a result of Nadal raising his game to new heights? He suffered at the Australian Open by being given one day less rest than Federer (all fair fans know if the situation was reversed then Nadal would have been holding the trophy), but a fully fit Djokovic would have dispatched them both. And his performances against Federer since have been ample evidence of a player in terminal decline.

Which leaves us with DJOKOVIC -sure, the guy has issues. His game is not the most beautiful to watch. But only the most biased, swivel-eyed, Fedal looney-tune would argue that he isn't the best player of the 3.

The facts, and the evidence of your own eyes-and lived experience- don't lie.
They all have big plusses in the resume and holes also. Put them all together federer has by far the most plusses and the least holes. Both objective and irrefutable records and subjective one also. If fed has holes the others have craters.

Fed is not Djokovics or nadals peer. The fact he regularly beat them both is one of the holes in the two players legacies I mentioned. I wouldn’t hold it against nadal if he developed a losing head to head against shapovalov. He shouldn’t be losing to fed though on any surface. Realistically neither should Djokovic. I accept that fed is an exceptional player and GOAT but straight setting supposed GOATS 5 years younger and taking slams, WTF, masters etc directly from them should not be happening if those players are as great as you belive they are. Remember fed is a player not in the right era. He is genuinely a serve and volley player who grew up and trained as a child expecting fast surfaces, he plays with an outdated racket size and outdated grip. It’s his talent that makes him relevant as a current geriatric player. He shouldn’t be directly denying these GOATS as you call them slams with his outdated technology and game if those GOATS aware as good as you say the are
 
Last edited:

Jackuar

Hall of Fame
Federer and Nadal. Two of the all-time greats. No doubt about it. But why are their fans so unwilling to believe the evidence of, not only the stats, but their own eyes and own lived experience.

FEDERER -his longevity is incredible. He is a beautiful and graceful tennis player. No one could argue otherwise. But it is beyond question that he took advantage of a very weak era in tennis to hoover up major after major. Look at the facts about his opponents up to 2008.

When Nadal and Djokovic reached maturity he stopped winning slams with such regularity. He continued to win the odd one, sure, but in the big slam meetings with Nadal and Djokovic he was regularly defeated. He is 3-9 to Nadal in slam meetings and 6-9 to Djokovic (2-8 in their last ten meetings!) 9 wins in 27 slam matches against your biggest rivals? Are these really the stats of the greatest player of all time? When you have such a miserable record in slams against not one, but TWO of your biggest rivals? When you only start winning again when Djokovic is injured?

I mean, take off the Fed-shaped specs and look at the facts objectively. There is much of the modern day Emerson about him. He hoovered up titles when the opposition was weak. That is why total slams can only ever be part of the measure. To deny it is to place Emerson above Laver.

His inability to win the Grand Slam also is a definite black mark against his claims to GOAT-ness. One slam on clay simply doesn't cut it.

NADAL -a brilliant competitor. The heart of a lion. A will to never give up, the likes of which we've not seen since the glory days of Jimbo. And he moved the game forward with his demolitions of the previous best player in the world, Federer. But the facts don't lie. His skills failed to translate fully to anything other than clay courts. Sure, at his uninjured peak he matched or defeated Federer on most surfaces other than indoor hard, but when Djokovic sorted out his head and his stamina, Nadal had no answer. He was left playing catch-up as Djokovic started to defeat him on surface after surface, culminating in the beat-down in Paris.

He has done incredibly well to come back from injury, but he is a shadow of the player he was. Like Federer, he has taken advantage of the most depleted field in tennis history to nab two majors, but does anyone really think that it is as a result of Nadal raising his game to new heights? He suffered at the Australian Open by being given one day less rest than Federer (all fair fans know if the situation was reversed then Nadal would have been holding the trophy), but a fully fit Djokovic would have dispatched them both. And his performances against Federer since have been ample evidence of a player in terminal decline.

Which leaves us with DJOKOVIC -sure, the guy has issues. His game is not the most beautiful to watch. But only the most biased, swivel-eyed, Fedal looney-tune would argue that he isn't the best player of the 3.

The facts, and the evidence of your own eyes-and lived experience- don't lie.
Federer MADE his competition pre 2008 look ridiculous. Take out Fed, every one of his competitors there would've been multi major winners. Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian. The thing is he made them look like junior league players. Nadal won a mono. Djoko won a post prime player.

Make the three reborn for the same age. I bet Fed hands them both at least one double bagel in a career and a h2h like with Roddick.
 

crazyups

Professional
The 2012 Australian Open final was probably the highest level match ever. Probably higher than wimbledon 2008. Djok and Nadal where basically even in level. We are talking peak level.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Federer and Nadal. Two of the all-time greats. No doubt about it. But why are their fans so unwilling to believe the evidence of, not only the stats, but their own eyes and own lived experience.

FEDERER -his longevity is incredible. He is a beautiful and graceful tennis player. No one could argue otherwise. But it is beyond question that he took advantage of a very weak era in tennis to hoover up major after major. Look at the facts about his opponents up to 2008.

When Nadal and Djokovic reached maturity he stopped winning slams with such regularity. He continued to win the odd one, sure, but in the big slam meetings with Nadal and Djokovic he was regularly defeated. He is 3-9 to Nadal in slam meetings and 6-9 to Djokovic (2-8 in their last ten meetings!) 9 wins in 27 slam matches against your biggest rivals? Are these really the stats of the greatest player of all time? When you have such a miserable record in slams against not one, but TWO of your biggest rivals? When you only start winning again when Djokovic is injured?

I mean, take off the Fed-shaped specs and look at the facts objectively. There is much of the modern day Emerson about him. He hoovered up titles when the opposition was weak. That is why total slams can only ever be part of the measure. To deny it is to place Emerson above Laver.

His inability to win the Grand Slam also is a definite black mark against his claims to GOAT-ness. One slam on clay simply doesn't cut it.

NADAL -a brilliant competitor. The heart of a lion. A will to never give up, the likes of which we've not seen since the glory days of Jimbo. And he moved the game forward with his demolitions of the previous best player in the world, Federer. But the facts don't lie. His skills failed to translate fully to anything other than clay courts. Sure, at his uninjured peak he matched or defeated Federer on most surfaces other than indoor hard, but when Djokovic sorted out his head and his stamina, Nadal had no answer. He was left playing catch-up as Djokovic started to defeat him on surface after surface, culminating in the beat-down in Paris.

He has done incredibly well to come back from injury, but he is a shadow of the player he was. Like Federer, he has taken advantage of the most depleted field in tennis history to nab two majors, but does anyone really think that it is as a result of Nadal raising his game to new heights? He suffered at the Australian Open by being given one day less rest than Federer (all fair fans know if the situation was reversed then Nadal would have been holding the trophy), but a fully fit Djokovic would have dispatched them both. And his performances against Federer since have been ample evidence of a player in terminal decline.

Which leaves us with DJOKOVIC -sure, the guy has issues. His game is not the most beautiful to watch. But only the most biased, swivel-eyed, Fedal looney-tune would argue that he isn't the best player of the 3.

The facts, and the evidence of your own eyes-and lived experience- don't lie.
Why do you ignore the fact Djokovic won half his majors in arguably the weakest era ever (2014-2017)?
 

MugOpponent

Hall of Fame
I have repeatedly said that Fed's legacy against those 2 comes down to these 4 matches that he should have won:
W 2008
AO 2009
USO 2010
USO 2011
?
In what world should Fed have won W 2008? Fed wins two tie breaks and is fortunate to take it to a fifth set and he should have won the match lol.

Frankly Nadal was just as worthy if not more of winning W 2007 as Fed was of winning those two.
 
Last edited:
Hey bro, I've seen that article before. It's a good read, but you evaded my question. How many of those 30+ year old guys who won their titles and achieved high rankings are ranked in the top 5 and making it deep into slams? There were a bunch of guys on that list, and only Stan actually fits the criteria I mentioned. I'm not questioning the capability of 30+ year olds to play excellent tennis - they obviously can, as proven by your article. What I'm questioning is their capability to compete for the biggest titles like the Slams and stay in the highest echelons of the rankings and sustain it. None of those guys except Stan has been able to do that.

Also, that article was produced in Jan 2017. Since then, Monfils has dropped from no. 7 to no. 46. Cuevas has dropped from no. 22 to no. 32. Stan dropped from no. 4 to no. 7. Kravchuk has dropped from no. 85 to no. 269. Brown has dropped from no. 72 to no. 124. Jaziri has dropped from no. 56 to no. 96. Mahut has dropped from no. 39 to no. 103. Robert has dropped from no. 54 to no. 231. Karlovic has dropped from no. 20 to no. 79. Lorenzi has dropped slightly from no. 40 to no. 43. Only Muller beat his 2016 ranking and rose from no. 33 to no. 25. The top 10 in 2017 has also gotten considerably younger with Thiem, Zverev, Dimitrov and Goffin making their way in.

Darn those pesky facts!
 

Yoneyama

Hall of Fame
9 wins in 27 slam matches against his co-all-time-greats is THE evidence.
Oh yes, only slam matches count, only tennis matches count, only h2h counts.......o_O Don't be one dimensional. On a WHOLE both Federer and Nadal have done more for tennis than Djokovic. I would go so far as to say that the "legacy" of Federer has done more for tennis than any other player ever has.

Ask any non tennis fan if they know any tennis players. 9/10 times I bet you will get a Federer > Nadal > whoever else > in that order.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
And that's the thing, they've never all been at the peak at the same time.
That's it right there. Three incredible players but not peaking at the same time, makes it complicated.

The bottom line: It ain't over till it's over.

Things will not be clear until all three are retired.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
No, what I am saying is you won't be seeing many people complaining if Zverev actually does get those numbers, so many will be on his side so to speak...everybody loves a winner, hence why Federer, Nadal and Djokovic has the vast majority of the fans. Whether or not he ends up being greater will be debatable, since you cannot compare era imo, but you are specifically talking about Fed fans complaining, what is to say many don't take a liking to Zverev because he displays champions qualities that attracted them to Federer?
Or for that matter, how many people would be 100% behind Dimitrov if he starts winning slams?

I would. ;)

When we sense that a good player just doesn't have what it takes to get to finals and win them, it is quite natural to lose some interest, especially when such a player is aging.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I think there is a difference here. Federer played the top 127 players in the world to win his slams. A lot of players were not allowed the play the slams when Emerson was racking them up, because they were not for pro players. So Emerson was not beating all the top guys in the world due to the way pros were banned from playing slams. However, no one was banned from playing when Federer was winning.

IMO, you cannot compare them.
Hey, you gotta remember you are talking to a guy who's lived through the Emerson era.
:D
 

masao

New User
Weakeraking Federer VS BIG 4 in 2006

2-4 Nadal
o-1 Murray
2-0 Djokovic

Total 4-5

Strongeraking Djokovic VS BIG 4 in 2011

6-0 Nadal
4-1 Federer
2-1Murray(ret)

Total 12-2

:p:p:p
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Which leaves us with DJOKOVIC -sure, the guy has issues. His game is not the most beautiful to watch. But only the most biased, swivel-eyed, Fedal looney-tune would argue that he isn't the best player of the 3.

The facts, and the evidence of your own eyes-and lived experience- don't lie.
He's not the best player of the three, not YET.

If he gets close to 19 slams, and I think around 16 or 17 is close, he gets extra credit for being the youngest and having to play his way out of the Fedal shadow.

You can make the case that 2011 was one of the most amazing years in the OE, and his 12 month run of 4 majors is second only to Laver (not done in a calendar year.)

You can't rate ATGs by partial careers. If his career is over, now way he equals Fedal. HIs career before 2011 was too weak.

He was nearly 24 before his career really took off, and that is very late. It has cost him, so he can only make that up with superb play past the age of 30. His eventual place in tennis history depends on going on a tear again for a few years, possible but not likely.
 

jimmy0slams

Semi-Pro
Weak era of trolling. Sad.
In fairness, he does have a point...
No tennis player in their 20s right now has won multiple slams....
From September next year (assuming no new GS champions) we wont have any player in his 20s as a slam holder.

Imagine hearing this 10 years ago ... you would have laughed ... whatever way you look at it, the ATP has a talent problem with the young guys, no one NEW is coming in to push these old guys.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
In fairness, he does have a point...
No tennis player in their 20s right now has won multiple slams....
From September next year (assuming no new GS champions) we wont have any player in his 20s as a slam holder.

Imagine hearing this 10 years ago ... you would have laughed ... whatever way you look at it, the ATP has a talent problem with the young guys, no one NEW is coming in to push these old guys.
True. But what this mostly says as far as so-called "weak eras" are concerned is that the weaker era was, by far, Nadal's/Djokovic's rather than Federer's. Like every over ATG before him, Fed had to beat the players from the previous generation, from his generation, and from the next one (basically Nadal and Djokovic), while Nadal and Djokovic only had to beat players from the previous generation (basically Federer) and from their own generation (ie each other). But the next generation never delivered, so they're not getting their asses handed to them repeatedly by one or several younger great players. All the ATG's before them had to deal with holding back the next generation as long as they could before they faded away--Nadal and Djokovic don't. Heck, it's even worse. Since 2014, the guy they've had to stop from taking over from them is *Fed*, who is from the *previous* generation. And this should *never*, in any conceivable universe where tennis is a competitive sport, have happened.

The only explanations for that would be that (A) Nadal and Djokovic are much weaker than we thought if they're still allowing Federer to beat them the way he is at 36 (which we know isn't true), or (B) Federer is just so good that he escapes the normal rules. Still fighting for #1 with a two-slam (maybe three-major) season at 36? This is unheard of. The only possibilities are that all the others are dismal (*all* the others, Nadal and Djokovic included) or that Fed is just too good.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
When Nadal and Federer inevitably retire, I'd like to see what the response is when Zverev hammers off 20 slams in his career. Either will have to accept Zverev as the GOAT, or blame it on "weak next gen".
You mean, kinda like you're blaming Fed winning 19 slams on 2004-2007 "weak era"?

So what exactly makes you the moral high ground here? I must have missed it.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
The only explanations for that would be that (A) Nadal and Djokovic are much weaker than we thought if they're still allowing Federer to beat them the way he is at 36 (which we know isn't true), or (B) Federer is just so good that he escapes the normal rules.
I see no signs that Djokovic WAS allowing Fed to beat him before his playing level fell off a cliff late in 2016.

Here is where I agree with you:

What we are seeing right now we have not seen since the very beginning of the OE, and earlier on the pro tour.

If you go back and look at '68-70 or so, things were similar.

Look at RG '68. Gonzalez beat Emerson in the QFs. A 40 year-old beat a 32 year-old, then lost to Laver, who was just shy of age 30. Then Rosewall beat Laver, who was almost 34. Rosewall beat Gimeno, who was almost 31.

All of this happened on clay.

So remember, history does repeat itself. These ATGs got even older and mostly dominated. Then Connors and Co. flipped the whole thing.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I can't really answer that question, since if that was at all measurable, the GOAT debate might actually have some meaning to it. I can't define a specific point, or measure the degree of strength for that matter, all I can do is compare relative strength in competition. I don't mean to beat around the bush with your question, but I can't really give a concrete answer to it. For instance, I would say that the field was stronger in 2010 than it was in 2004, but it's really impossible to prove that statement, let alone anything that would have fallen in-between.
Fair enough. In other words we all have our subjective opinions, and I am fine with that. For instance I would say the field was not stronger in 2010 compared to 2004, again, just an opinion, like yours, and like anyone else here.
 

fedfan39

Rookie
In what world should Fed have won W 2008? Fed wins two tie breaks and is fortunate to take it to a fifth set and he should have won the match lol.

Frankly Nadal was just as worthy if not more of winning W 2007 as Fed was of winning those two.
Both W 2007/08 were competitive because Nadal was in Federer's head.

Nadal beat a monster Fed in 2005 RG. Then he beat even a bigger monster Fed 4 times in 2006; once in Dubai. He beat Fed a 3rd time at RG in 2007.

Do you have any clue how those losses messed with Fed's head? Fed was a fantastic clay player and had the repeated misfortune to be at the losing end to Nadal at RG, Rome and Monte Carlo. He was clearly rattled in W 2007 until he got his **** together in the 5th set and blew Nadal off.

In 2008, Fed had mono and Djokovic took him down in straight sets at AO. Then, Nadal just blasted him off the court at RG. Fed was already a lost man. I remember legends like Laver and Borg giving Nadal an edge in the Wimbledon final. Credit to Nadal for playing a match for the ages...he really went for it and never gave Fed an inch. Fed played valiantly, but to play against your own daemons AND Nadal was too much. He sucked so bad at getting breaks on Nadal's serve (Nadal's serve????? Why couldn't he break??? It's not Sampras or Ivanisevic...clearly shows how much Nadal was in Fed's head) that he couldn't figure it out till the end.

I don't have to keep repeating the same thing over and over. My wife always joked (she is a huge Nadal fan) that Fed was done if he ever faced Nadal in *any slam* and it was absolutely true for a long time. UNTIL 2017. When Fed finally stopped playing for #1, finally stopped caring what the world thinks of him, finally switched to a larger racket and let loose on that backhand. Then, it happened. I wish Fed had done this sooner, but his success was his own enemy. He never had to bother solving Nadal even when he was losing so embarrassingly to him, because he still won 2 slams in 2009 and 1 slam in 2010 and had a very thick 16-6 lead over Nadal at the end of AO 2010.

Basically, Fedal has its roots in 2005/6. Anyone who understands that can understand why Federer lost those 2 slams against Nadal. If he doesn't lose those 2, their legacies are totally different, and we don't have to endure the moron OP.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic the best? He lost 5 slam finals to Murray and Wawrinka. Fedal doesn't nearly have as many embarrassing losses in finals.

See, you can make everyone a mug if you look from the right perspective.
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
Djokovic's era was so tough his biggest competitors for much of his peak were 5-years-past-his-prime Papa Federer and all-time-great Muzzah. :rolleyes:

In all seriousness, how do "weak era" proponents not see that for much of Nadal and especially Djokovic's dominant periods, literally their greatest/only real competition was a "fraud" who only won a bunch of slams thanks to said weak era, or so the story goes?

If the Nadal and Djokovic era was full of such strong players, why did Fed and the 30+ crowd (weak era players) fare so well against them long after their collective peak?
Why do Djokodal fans ignore all of the evidence?
 

fedfan39

Rookie
Djokovic the best? He lost 5 slam finals to Murray and Wawrinka. Fedal doesn't nearly have as many embarrassing losses in finals.

See, you can make everyone a mug if you look from the right perspective.
Djokovic has displayed a pretty high peak level, something Nadal has never done. He really shouldn't have lost the 2013 and 2016 USO finals (2013 final loss has given him dubious distinction of losing to NADAL at the USO more times!). If he wins those 2, he has 14 slams and 10 on hard courts...he would absolutely surpass Federer as the best hard court player even without a Cincy title. In my mind, those 2 losses have really cost him.

Djokovic did display his absolutely mastery of an 80% Federer. Federer was no slouch in 2014/15. He just physically could not exchange fire from the baseline with Djokovic over 5 sets, so it is an interesting question who wins peak-to-peak. Nevertheless, Djokovic's 3 slam final wins over Federer, his finals wins over Nadal at each of AO, Wimby and USO and also the fact that he beat Nadal at the FO gets him tremendous cred. Djokovic is no slouch, and if it was +2 slams, he is right there in the conversation. In my mind, he already ties Nadal because he has way more weeks at #1 (a test of true dominance), 5 WTF titles, and otherwise an equal resume to Nadal in every sense.

Edit: I also disagree his losses are embarrassing. Murray is not a walkover. Wawrinka played out of his mind on 3 days in his life and 2 happened to be against Djokovic (1 against Nadal). All of his other losses are to Federer and Nadal. One thing the OP got right is that the competition Djokovic faced is off the charts, and this is something I give to him totally. He has my respect because he walked the path of fire during his peak and came out on top. Remember, both Nadal and him are almost the same ages, and 2011-15 was both of theirs peak years. Who was better? Djokovic, who finished 4 of those 5 years at #1.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Emerson 12-Laver-11. How's that?
Ever hear of the Men's Pro Tour? Laver played that tour for 5 of his prime years, yet still won 11 slams. Rosewall played on that tour for 11 of his prime years, yet still won 8 slams, 4 after turning 33 when the open era began. Emerson won most of his amateur slams when the very best players were on the pro tour. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez are the greatest players of the post 1950 era just about equal in greatness, in different ways-IMO. Sampras, due to his poor clay court record is just below the other mentioned, but above
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Obviously the era was weak, most players from 2004-2007 would be a Tom Fawcett or a Will Blumberg in the modern era at best, but you still have to give Federer credit for spending 300 weeks at #1 in a 4 year span and winning 19 out of a possible 16 slams in that period as well.
 

BlueClayGOAT

Semi-Pro
If Zverev wins more slams than Federer, I'd really have no problem saying Zverev is GOAT- whatever GOAT means. There can't really be a definitive GOAT.

However, lmao at the idea of Zverev winning 20+ slams. Unless the guy realizes that the net is not made of hot lava and figures out how to win BO5 matches against top 10 players, he's not winning slams any time soon.

The potential is there though. But even if he lives up to it, it's going to take stratospherically high amounts of longevity and consistency and ability to win 20 slams. Players like the Big 3 don't grow on trees.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic did display his absolutely mastery of an 80% Federer. Federer was no slouch in 2014/15. He just physically could not exchange fire from the baseline with Djokovic over 5 sets, so it is an interesting question who wins peak-to-peak.
I'd say in some cases more like 95% Federer, but that missing 5% was all the edge he needed.

I don't think any player has ever kept an edge over another giving away 6 years unless the younger man was for some reason compromised himself. 6 years is almost a generation in tennis. That's why comparing Fed to Novak before and after 2011 gives two completely different pictures. By 2011 Novak was actually late in hitting a peak, and in 2011 Fed was late in trying to hold on to one.

Novak has not experienced the same thing because there has been no one young to step up and challenge him as he has approached 30 and passed it, no one younger. That's what has made this era odd. Even Nadal had no one younger pushing him other than Murray and Novak.
 

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
The evidence shows that Federer is the GOAT just like Sampras before him. Federer was not the GOAT until he beat Sampras numbers not the man. Now until someone beats the same numbers or put up better numbers, Federer is the GOAT. Stop with the disingenuous arguments that fit only some biased agenda due to fear your fav won’t be able to match Federer’s numbers. Federer is not from this generation and it is a credit to him that he is still playing successfully.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
The evidence is that Novak Djokovic has a disgraceful record in converting his opportunities at the US Open, and this has cost him a chance at GOAThood.

2007 - lost in F vs. Federer
2008 - lost in SF vs. Federer
2009 - lost in SF vs. Federer
2010 - lost in F vs. Nadal
2011 - won
2012 - lost in F vs. Murray
2013 - lost in F vs. Nadal
2014 - lost in SF vs. Nishikori
2015 - won
2016 - lost in F vs. Wawrinka

10 consecutive semi-finals, but converted only 2 into wins. Lost against five different opponents.

And the OP has the gall to claim that this man stands above Federer and Nadal.

Begone, fake news bringer - begone!

:cool::p
 

Freddy Cat

Professional
You mean, kinda like you're blaming Fed winning 19 slams on 2004-2007 "weak era"?

So what exactly makes you the moral high ground here? I must have missed it.
I don't know why you're using the word 'blame' here -- nice straw man fallacy, though -- this thread seems to be full of that. Like, honestly, how do you even derive a response like that from what I said? Over your head, apparently.

I don't care who has more slams, or who achieved them in what time. I'm obviously highlighting the double standard and irrationality of Fed fans in what you quoted me on. No achievement that is equal on paper is ever going to be equal in its significance.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
That's it right there. Three incredible players but not peaking at the same time, makes it complicated.

The bottom line: It ain't over till it's over.

Things will not be clear until all three are retired.
Exactly, they've got a few more years left and a lot could change.
 

fedfan39

Rookie
The evidence is that Novak Djokovic has a disgraceful record in converting his opportunities at the US Open, and this has cost him a chance at GOAThood.

2007 - lost in F vs. Federer
2008 - lost in SF vs. Federer
2009 - lost in SF vs. Federer
2010 - lost in F vs. Nadal
2011 - won
2012 - lost in F vs. Murray
2013 - lost in F vs. Nadal
2014 - lost in SF vs. Nishikori
2015 - won
2016 - lost in F vs. Wawrinka

10 consecutive semi-finals, but converted only 2 into wins. Lost against five different opponents.

And the OP has the gall to claim that this man stands above Federer and Nadal.

Begone, fake news bringer - begone!

:cool::p
Sorry, this does not tell the complete picture.

It is true Djokovic has been very unlucky at the USO, but that is easily balanced out by his ridiculous dominance at the AO (and also add IW/Miami, the spring hard courts).

Now, other than the 2014 loss to Nishikori, exactly where is Djokovic lacking? 3 of his first losses were to Federer, but since then, Djokovic has beaten him 3 times and is tied at 3-3 against him at the USO. Also, losing to Federer in your early career does not diminish you in any way. Djokovic has drawn with Federer.

The 2013 Nadal loss should not have happened, agreed. Still, 1-2 against Nadal. Will they play again at the USO? If Djokovic returns anywhere near to his form, he should obliterate Nadal. Nadal's USO are vultured; Djokovic always faced tough opponents and was unfortunate enough to be placed in Federer's side alarmingly frequently. Given how frequently Nadal has been embarrassed at the USO, Djokovic easily dwarfs Nadal at the USO when the whole span is taken in totality.

Murray was due a couple of wins against Djokovic. Djokovic has beaten Murray how many times again? Murray is one of the finest players in the world, and losing to him twice in GS finals while simultaneously having a winning record against him by a wide margin (notably at the AO) doesn't diminish him.

2016 - I have watched this match a couple of times, and Wawrinka played out of his mind. This happens. Remember how Safin and Hewitt blew Sampras out in B2B USOs? Or how Edberg schooled Sampras in 1992? Even the great Sampras lost 3 USO finals. As I said, it happens.

If you look at Djokovic's 2 USO wins in isolation, it looks weak. But his 6 AO wins, 3 WImby wins (2 at Federer's and 1 at peak Nadal's expense), and his FO win (over Murray) shows a tremendously strong resume worthy of GOAT consideration.

Of course, Djokovic would have to come back at full strength and win at least 3 more slams to be in GOAT discussions. But his resume is already tremendous, and he is just a notch below Nadal and 2 notches below Federer at this moment.
 
Top