Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

FEDERER v NADAL V DJOKOVIC (etc) - MOD NOTE 1ST POST

11112131416

Comments



  • Found this interesting below:

    Grand Slam Finals since Nadal's first (French Open - 2005)

    Nadal - 25
    Federer - 22

    Grand Slam Finals since Djokovic's first (US Open - 2007)

    Djokovic - 24
    Federer - 17

    Not bad for old man Federer, whose first grand slam final was Wimbledon 2003!




  • bada_bing wrote: »
    ooops you're right, i must've had lazy eye and counted Ferrer as Federer!!!!!

    Yeh

    Lost ten in total. Delpo in U.S. ‘09




  • Some more interesting H2H stats between the Big 3 at all grand slam matches. This a head to head of all Federer's grand slam matches against Djokovic and Nadal

    Federer VS Nadal 3 - 9

    Federer VS Djokovic 6 - 9

    Objectively speaking any outsider would think based on the above h2h stats that Federer is the less dominant player compared to Nadal & Djokovic.




  • Yeh, but you’re forgetting you know what.....

    Glandular Fever!




  • Okay, this is going to be a bit all over the place. I'm a bit woozy after the gym!


    I don't think there can ever be a fair comparison between the three really. They peaked at different times.


    Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever, that's a given, but he is not the greatest of all time. He's only got 6 non-clay grand slams: Feds has got 19, Djoko 14. Plus Federer is 5/6 years older than Nadal/Djokovic: of a different generation really. It's a testament to his skill and competitiveness that he is still going and winning grand slams as recently as last year. Federer at his peak had to face down the new generation of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, even guys like Berdych/Soderling/Cilic/Del Potro could be great on their day, yet he kept coming back against them. Now a lot of these guys have fallen away, and Djokovic reigns supreme. I think it is a bad sign for tennis that there are no new guys coming through that are able to knock the old guys off their perch, and claim a grand slam. Djokovic will probably break Fed's grand slam record, but only because there is very little competition to stop him. Federer at 31 (in 2012) had 17 grand slams, and was runner up/semi-finalist is many others. After that he still stayed competitive against Nadal/Djokovic/Murray at their peak. Feds will always be the greatest to me because of this; he dug deep to compete against the greatest generation of tennis players.



    There should always be a changing of the guard, to keep the sport interesting. When it looked like Feds was unstoppable, Nadal came along. When it looked like Nadal was unstoppable Djokovic came along...who has come along since then? Djokovic hit top form in 2011, nearly 8 years ago, and has a kept a phenomenal standard ever since. With the standard so high, you would expect the next generation to be even better, but I don't see a next generation. They are probably too busy on social media :pac: I am starting to lose interest in tennis a little bit, and the fact that Nadal was crushed by Djokovic in the AO makes me worry that his dominance will continue for a long time without any serious challenge. I don't even think Djokovic is playing at his best, it's just that his opponents are not that good anymore, and he does enough to beat them.


  • Advertisement


  • I think the post above is as fair, unbiased and objective as I have seen on this thread..

    Fed for me is GOAT!




  • bada_bing wrote: »
    i can see why there'd be an argument over who had it hardest in GS finals, but one thing is pretty clear that most of Federer's grand slam wins are definitely easier compared to those of Nadal & Djokovic. It's interesting to note that he's only beaten Djokovic just once in a grand slam final. The combined H2H against Nadal & Djokovic is 4 - 10. Couldn't be more clear cut than that!!

    That's pretty flawed. It ignores victories in semi-finals against big names. It ignores the big rivals falling against lesser names in earlier rounds, who Federer routinely dispatched later in the tournament.




  • Okay, this is going to be a bit all over the place. I'm a bit woozy after the gym!


    I don't think there can ever be a fair comparison between the three really. They peaked at different times.


    Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever, that's a given, but he is not the greatest of all time. He's only got 6 non-clay grand slams: Feds has got 19, Djoko 14. Plus Federer is 5/6 years older than Nadal/Djokovic: of a different generation really. It's a testament to his skill and competitiveness that he is still going and winning grand slams as recently as last year. Federer at his peak had to face down the new generation of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, even guys like Berdych/Soderling/Cilic/Del Potro could be great on their day, yet he kept coming back against them. Now a lot of these guys have fallen away, and Djokovic reigns supreme. I think it is a bad sign for tennis that there are no new guys coming through that are able to knock the old guys off their perch, and claim a grand slam. Djokovic will probably break Fed's grand slam record, but only because there is very little competition to stop him. Federer at 31 (in 2012) had 17 grand slams, and was runner up/semi-finalist is many others. After that he still stayed competitive against Nadal/Djokovic/Murray at their peak. Feds will always be the greatest to me because of this; he dug deep to compete against the greatest generation of tennis players.



    There should always be a changing of the guard, to keep the sport interesting. When it looked like Feds was unstoppable, Nadal came along. When it looked like Nadal was unstoppable Djokovic came along...who has come along since then? Djokovic hit top form in 2011, nearly 8 years ago, and has a kept a phenomenal standard ever since. With the standard so high, you would expect the next generation to be even better, but I don't see a next generation. They are probably too busy on social media :pac: I am starting to lose interest in tennis a little bit, and the fact that Nadal was crushed by Djokovic in the AO makes me worry that his dominance will continue for a long time without any serious challenge. I don't even think Djokovic is playing at his best, it's just that his opponents are not that good anymore, and he does enough to beat them.

    Very good post.

    It is very disappointing that nobody has come through since Rafa/Novak/Murray. If you follow the pattern that a new star arises every 4 years or so, there should have been 2 new generations of superstars to have come through since. There should be somebody in their late 20s who has won 5-6 slams by now, and another aged 22 or so, who has started winning one or two and beginning to look dominant. That's the way tennis has always been, right up to Rafa/Novak/Murray. Since then, absolute dross!

    It is very disappointing. The sport has become predictable and uninspiring.




  • Found this interesting below:

    Grand Slam Finals since Nadal's first (French Open - 2005)

    Nadal - 25
    Federer - 22


    Grand Slam Finals since Djokovic's first (US Open - 2007)

    Djokovic - 24
    Federer - 17

    Not bad for old man Federer, whose first grand slam final was Wimbledon 2003!

    The above isn't true. Federer had only been in 4 grand slam finals by the time Nadal reached his first. So Federer has actually been in 26 slam finals since Nadal's first, not 22.




  • Chivito550 wrote: »
    Very good post.

    It is very disappointing that nobody has come through since Rafa/Novak/Murray. If you follow the pattern that a new star arises every 4 years or so, there should have been 2 new generations of superstars to have come through since. There should be somebody in their late 20s who has won 5-6 slams by now, and another aged 22 or so, who has started winning one or two and beginning to look dominant. That's the way tennis has always been, right up to Rafa/Novak/Murray. Since then, absolute dross!

    It is very disappointing. The sport has become predictable and uninspiring.

    Injury robbed us of Del Potro. Him aside there has been noone of note. I've held hope for Thiem and Zverev but we really should have seen more from both by now. Djokovic is imperious again and more power to him. Something that's overlooked his how weak he was in his early years. He retired often and ended up blaming his fatigue on gluten intolerance (or a food intolerance). It was after the diet shift that he turned into a brick wall for even Nadal and Federer to play against.


  • Advertisement




  • There should always be a changing of the guard, to keep the sport interesting. When it looked like Feds was unstoppable, Nadal came along. When it looked like Nadal was unstoppable Djokovic came along...who has come along since then? Djokovic hit top form in 2011, nearly 8 years ago, and has a kept a phenomenal standard ever since. With the standard so high, you would expect the next generation to be even better, but I don't see a next generation. They are probably too busy on social media :pac: I am starting to lose interest in tennis a little bit, and the fact that Nadal was crushed by Djokovic in the AO makes me worry that his dominance will continue for a long time without any serious challenge. I don't even think Djokovic is playing at his best, it's just that his opponents are not that good anymore, and he does enough to beat them.

    This is the problem I have in general with the narrative that usually concerns Federer over Djokovic. You hear about people losing interest because of Djokovic's current dominance and how it must be a weak era right now if Djokovic is dominating the game. Funnily enough I didn't hear the same complaint when Federer was dominating the game and he was at 17 slams before Djokovic became a strong player. Alos does that mean Federer last 3 slams were particularly weak ones especially considering that Djokovic was injured at the time?? I didn't hear any Federer supporters hint at that, instead they just threw around things like GOAT, Maestro, sublime...…… I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and has their own preferences and are certainly inspired by other players but this selective narrative really irks me as it is very heavily biased in favour of Federer and cheapens Djokovic current achievements..




  • bada_bing wrote: »
    This is the problem I have in general with the narrative that usually concerns Federer over Djokovic. You hear about people losing interest because of Djokovic's current dominance and how it must be a weak era right now if Djokovic is dominating the game. Funnily enough I didn't hear the same complaint when Federer was dominating the game and he was at 17 slams before Djokovic became a strong player. Alos does that mean Federer last 3 slams were particularly weak ones especially considering that Djokovic was injured at the time?? I didn't hear any Federer supporters hint at that, instead they just threw around things like GOAT, Maestro, sublime...…… I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and has their own preferences and are certainly inspired by other players but this selective narrative really irks me as it is very heavily biased in favour of Federer and cheapens Djokovic current achievements..

    Federer was 22-25 when dominating. Novak is now approaching 32. Nobody should be dominating men’s tennis at that age. It says as much about the young crop as it does Novak. And yes, Federer shouldn’t have been getting near slams at 35-36.




  • bada_bing wrote: »
    This is the problem I have in general with the narrative that usually concerns Federer over Djokovic. You hear about people losing interest because of Djokovic's current dominance and how it must be a weak era right now if Djokovic is dominating the game. Funnily enough I didn't hear the same complaint when Federer was dominating the game and he was at 17 slams before Djokovic became a strong player. Alos does that mean Federer last 3 slams were particularly weak ones especially considering that Djokovic was injured at the time?? I didn't hear any Federer supporters hint at that, instead they just threw around things like GOAT, Maestro, sublime...…… I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and has their own preferences and are certainly inspired by other players but this selective narrative really irks me as it is very heavily biased in favour of Federer and cheapens Djokovic current achievements..


    That's my point. Feds had peaked well before Djokovic (he is 6 years older), and Djokovic found his top form from 2011 onwards. What I was trying to say was that at 31 (in 2012), Feds was past his peak and was facing younger players that had peaked or were peaking (Murray, Wawrinka, Djokovic, Nadal and others). He didn't win a grand slam for nearly 5 years as a result. Djokovic at 31 does not have to face the challenges Federer had to face at 31 to win a lot more grand slams. There is no emerging generation, that is a serious threat to him. Nadal is clinging on but I don't think he is playing anywhere near his top form, and others of his generation have faded away. Even when Federer beat Nadal in 2017, I was aware that Nadal was not as his best even then. It was a great achievement for Feds to win that and he played brilliantly, but Nadal hasn't been the competitor he was for many years now. The French Open should be interesting, although it wouldn't surprise me if Djoko spanked Nadal in that too (he did it 2015 in straight sets if I recall correctly, before losing to Wawrinka in the final). It's not Djoko's fault that there is no new challenge to his supremacy, but I don't think it's good for the game.




  • Here's an interesting thing to consider, if Djokovic had never found his top form back in 2011 and just fizzled out, we probably would have seen Federer and Nadal win a lot more majors and dominate every other tournament. It would be reasonable for people to get tired of this unchallenged dominance from Federer/Nadal ( but then again I don't know why nobody complained about Fed's dominance with 17 slams before 2011 ) and people would have lost interest in tennis. But as it happens , Djokovic came along and changed the whole dynamic in men's tennis and made it more exciting and compelling to follow. So in a way people should thank Djokovic for that.




  • bada_bing wrote: »
    Here's an interesting thing to consider, if Djokovic had never found his top form back in 2011 and just fizzled out, we probably would have seen Federer and Nadal win a lot more majors and dominate every other tournament. It would be reasonable for people to get tired of this unchallenged dominance from Federer/Nadal ( but then again I don't know why nobody complained about Fed's dominance with 17 slams before 2011 ) and people would have lost interest in tennis. But as it happens , Djokovic came along and changed the whole dynamic in men's tennis and made it more exciting and compelling to follow. So in a way people should thank Djokovic for that.

    I don’t think having a dominant player is bad for the game. Having players in their 30s dominating is what is bad for the game. It highlights how poor the new crop are. This is the first era we’ve had where 30 year olds have dominated. Right now, there is no grand slam male champion younger than 30 years of age (Cilic and Delpo recently turned 30). That highlights the shocking state of men’s tennis right now.




  • Okay, this is going to be a bit all over the place. I'm a bit woozy after the gym!


    I don't think there can ever be a fair comparison between the three really. They peaked at different times.


    Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever, that's a given, but he is not the greatest of all time. He's only got 6 non-clay grand slams: Feds has got 19, Djoko 14. Plus Federer is 5/6 years older than Nadal/Djokovic: of a different generation really. It's a testament to his skill and competitiveness that he is still going and winning grand slams as recently as last year. Federer at his peak had to face down the new generation of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, even guys like Berdych/Soderling/Cilic/Del Potro could be great on their day, yet he kept coming back against them. Now a lot of these guys have fallen away, and Djokovic reigns supreme. I think it is a bad sign for tennis that there are no new guys coming through that are able to knock the old guys off their perch, and claim a grand slam. Djokovic will probably break Fed's grand slam record, but only because there is very little competition to stop him. Federer at 31 (in 2012) had 17 grand slams, and was runner up/semi-finalist is many others. After that he still stayed competitive against Nadal/Djokovic/Murray at their peak. Feds will always be the greatest to me because of this; he dug deep to compete against the greatest generation of tennis players.



    There should always be a changing of the guard, to keep the sport interesting. When it looked like Feds was unstoppable, Nadal came along. When it looked like Nadal was unstoppable Djokovic came along...who has come along since then? Djokovic hit top form in 2011, nearly 8 years ago, and has a kept a phenomenal standard ever since. With the standard so high, you would expect the next generation to be even better, but I don't see a next generation. They are probably too busy on social media :pac: I am starting to lose interest in tennis a little bit, and the fact that Nadal was crushed by Djokovic in the AO makes me worry that his dominance will continue for a long time without any serious challenge. I don't even think Djokovic is playing at his best, it's just that his opponents are not that good anymore, and he does enough to beat them.

    Surely the greatest player of the greatest generation is the greatest?




  • Surely the greatest player of the greatest generation is the greatest?


    No.




  • No.

    Well your own reasoning makes even less sense




  • Well your own reasoning makes even less sense

    Yes




  • Hey everybody, I rediscovered the GOAT debate thread that's lain idle since 2019!
    It's like a time capsule, let's see what everyone was saying back then :)


  • Advertisement


  • Fedalovic, the goat!




  • Fed for me is the GOAT, he's a class act. Novak is a great player, but just doesn't measure up to Fed in terms of how he carries himself, so for me even if he passes Fed on Grand Slams he won't in the GOAT debate.

    Nadal is a great also, but not consistent enough outside of clay to be the GOAT.

    Hoping Fed gets Olympic gold this year to seal the deal.  

    All opinion of course. There's  a strong case to be put forward for all three.




  • Nadal is my personal favourite but I think Federer is the greatest.




  • Djoko undoubtedly the greatest after that French Open win now. The slams total which he will no doubt overtake in the coming 2 years is the last remaining hurdle to his dominance

    Federer is my favourite player, but if Nadal hadn't been shocked by Soderling in the 4th round in 2009, he would never have won a french. If we are talking about playstyle purely, then Federer is the greatest. No one has made tennis look so good as Federer.

    A lot to admire about Nadal, but I hate his playstyle. He can never be the goat for the way he plays for me plus that so many of his total slams comes from just the French. I'm happy for him to have greatest clay courter who ever lived title if he wants it from me :)




  • Just think... the brits tried to include murray in a "big 4"!!!

    Like comparing paul lawrie to jack nicklaus!




  • Agassi beat Federer multiple times, and Sampras dominated Wimbledon , One Agassi and Sampras was off the scene Federer had a free ride to a lots of his Grand Slams




  • Agassi beat Federer multiple times, and Sampras dominated Wimbledon , One Agassi and Sampras was off the scene Federer had a free ride to a lots of his Grand Slams

    What age was Federer then?




  • eagle eye wrote: »
    What age was Federer then?


    in 2005 us open final Federer was 23, beat Agassi in the final who was 35,
    Agassi retired year later.




  • in 2005 us open final Federer was 23, beat Agassi in the final who was 35, Agassi retired year later.
    No I'm talking to you about when Agassi and Sampras beat him multiple times, what age was he then?


  • Advertisement


  • eagle eye wrote: »
    No I'm talking to you about when Agassi and Sampras beat him multiple times, what age was he then?


    Agassi beat him in a 2002 final, Federer was 20


Advertisement