French Open 2023

walshb

Personally FED for me as GOAT. Awful lot more than just slam counts.

The three of them have awesome stats and records. They also all gave real career longevity. There’s not much between all three when you slice and dice all the stats.

two things for me for Fed: his skills snd tennis talents definitely number 1, and his consistent brilliance and always being at or near slams for 15-16 years is what edges him for m

finally: all on their absolute best over 10 matches across all surfaces? They all beat each other and it’s very close. Maybe Nole just about winning more.

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120721633#Comment_120721633

"There’s not much between all three when you slice and dice all the stats."

15% more slams than Federer, 25% more weeks and counting at No. 1.

That's not 'not much', that's daylight. I agree that Federer had the nicer style.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120721936#Comment_120721936

There are loads other stats and records where all three are awesome..

slam finals appearance should be a huge criterion: I think Nole on about 33 and Fed 30 or so. Nadal also 30 +

edit: 34/31/30 for Nole/Fed/Nadal. Very close

Jack Daw

I think Federer is probably the most naturally talented of the 3 , it seemed effortless of him, you feel if he had to use a frying pan as a racquet he'd have still been a pretty decent player.I think he was the most aesthetically pleasing of the 3 he was so graceful on the court.

However judging by aesthetics depends largely on your taste.One of my favourite footballers of all time is Juan Carlos Valeron who used to play for Deportivo La Coruna and Spain , he was a pure joy to watch an incredibly graceful player.However I would say he's not even considered in the top 50 players of all time (or even close) by most observers.

I don't think you can really use aesthetics to base greatness in a sport on particularly in an individual sport you base it on achievements and I'd say Roger is behind both Nadal and Djokovic when it comes to achievements in the sport.

Buddy Bubs

Federer is my favourite by a distance and there's arguments for all 3 being the best apart from just GS wins but the damning one against Federer is that his head to head against the others in matches is negative. Taking all other players and external factors away, both Djokovic and Nadal beat him more than he beat them

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120724224#Comment_120724224

Fed beat Nadal a lot more in recent years though, and outside of clay, Fed trumps him.

Nole is 27/23 v Fed. Pretty close. Yes, better GS record, but a match is a match. And by god, had Fed taken his chances in 3 those GS matches (serving for win) it’s 26/24 Fed. So much to consider.

all three are very close across all criteria. H2H can be important, but they have all beat each other quite a lot. And plenty matches could have went either way, so really, H2H is not that much a factor for me with these three

Rikand

A lot of nadals wins over fed were on his favoured clay surface as well, weren't they ? And a lot more of the year is played on clay so more opportunities to win

TomSweeney

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120720558#Comment_120720558

Nope, Fed failed to win that last point.

Fed won 2 sets

Djokovic won 3.

Done deal.

The Golden Miller

These new young players genuinely are a disgrace, and making the big 3 seem more invincible than they are. It's like these youngsters are in competition to see who can out bottle who. As for Alcaraz being the shining light, he'll be sent right back psychologically. Shapovalov who I think has the best potential game of them all, looks like a completely broken man under pressure.

We're at the point, where Djokovic doesn't even have to play well, just show up. If he's behind, he doesn't even need to apply pressure or force his game. No, all the youngsters will just do it for him. Give him back breaks and sets on a plate, when they completely and utterly crumble.

We're at the point where grand slam counting is becoming pointless, in the sense it's not even about Djokovic being so brilliant, more so every youngster bottling it.

I was laughed at when I once said a 18 year old Lleyton Hewitt would hammer a 36 year old Djokovic. Not the player Hewitt became or peak Djokovic, but a Hewitt breaking through compared to these youngsters, playing a veteran. He had that steel and fight to see it through, which is what every youngster seems to lack.

If a player, or a few of them, broke through a few years ago with the mental steel to win, Nadal and Djokovic would have retired from routine beatings. What's going on now is completely farcical and distorting the merit and worth of a grand slam.

As I said, all Djokovic has to do is turn up. Play bad? Not a problem. Just wait for the other guy to collapse. You might be fooled into thinking Djokovic has to play better and force pressure on him to cause the collapse ye? Well that's what you'd think, but no, they'll do it all by themselves.

I can't stress it enough, these youngsters are an embarrassment to the game, and it's being going on for a few years now

The Golden Miller

The one thing lately that annoys me about who the best ever, is that the argument is between the big 3, like it's accepted they are the 3 best players ever.

It isn't the case, the best of any generation is up there, talent doesn't inherently improve generation to generation. People might say this and that generation is weak, so a certain player dominated should be disgarded, don't see the irony. If one guy was so ahead of a weak generation, a few levels up, he by definition is still in the ball park area of the other greats.

The other major factor completely overlooked, and the main reason for the big 3 dominance and huge grand slam haul, is the major improvements in science, conditioning and even diets from even the 90s. It's not tennis alone, footballers staying at the top well into their 30s now too.

Borg had what, 11 majors by 26? Give him another 10 years at the top. He didn't even play one slam. How many slams did the big 3 have at the age Sampras retired. Laver and Roswells pro slams rarely counted either, Roswell on 23 btw.

This idea that the big 3, are definitely the best ever, just in which order, is getting annoying, and disrespectful to other greats. The reality is, you'll be splitting hairs between all the greats if you brought them into the one generation with the same conditions

forumdedum

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120727907#Comment_120727907

a gift from Fed unfortunately. Djokovic did not play well that day. he was given the trophy. I stopped watching it once the match point was blown and have not watched tennis since. Never will again. Can't stand gifts in sport

forumdedum

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120729004#Comment_120729004

Couldn't agree more. Bottlers is the word. it's unreal how bad they are

MisterAnarchy

We're at the point, where Djokovic doesn't even have to play well, just show up. If he's behind, he doesn't even need to apply pressure or force his game. No, all the youngsters will just do it for him. Give him back breaks and sets on a plate, when they completely and utterly crumble.

You forget that Djokovic is better than ever now though , hitting the ball harder and moving better than ever according to Tim Henman and Mats Wilander.

At 36 years of age.

The reality is that he didnt get out of third gear in Paris and he is nowhere near as good as he was despite the nonsesne from the Eurosport clowns.

Girly Gal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120721936#Comment_120721936

Djokovic will go down as the greatest, mainly as pretty much all the stats are in his favour. All 3 peaked at different times, obviously Federer peaked in the noughties and the others were later; Nadal in the late noughties and early tens and Djokovic from the start of the tens. Personally I think all 3 were well past their prime from around 2016/17, but, the following generation were a particularly poor generation (Alcaraz has already overtaken them). Djokovic being the youngest has benefited the most from this as he really hasn't had much competition in the last few years; Nadal outside the FO has been inconsistent in the other slams since around 2016 and has been battling injuries pretty much every year, Federer had a revival mainly down to his racket change, but, was clearly in decline, age and injury eventually caught up with him as it appears to have with Nadal too. Even when in decline Nadal and Federer were still the biggest threats to Djokovic.

The big worry I would have for tennis is Djokovic is winning slams much easier now than in his prime, also Nadal after a long injury lay off won the AO ( in Djokovic's absence) his least favourite slam, a near 40 year old Federer made the Wimbledon final ( and should have won it) and a near 41 year old Federer on one leg made the Wimbledon QF. We can pretend like some in the media that Djokovic is playing his best tennis of his career, but, he's not, it's the level of opposition that is well below what it was when he was in his prime. Is there even a player at the level of Wawrinka was in his prime ( next best of his generation outside the big 3 & Murray)I don't think there is. Alcaraz might prove to be better in time, but, would he have won 3 slams with Djokovic, Nadal and Federer still at or close to their prime, plus Murray at his peak also. Winning slams against those meant slams were hard earned. The level right not is way below that, that's not Djokovic's fault, he will continue to pile up the slams until his body can take it, and is likely to go very close to the calendar slam at 36 years of age, something he failed to do in his prime, but, it should be acknowledged that the opposition is at a near all time me low at the moment.

josip

Gens

The Golden Miller

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120731945#Comment_120731945

I've seen Djokovic against the likes of Shapovalov and other youngsters, where they clearly have him, he's too old and didn't have answers. Then they collapse, completely wilt.

Djokovic isn't anywhere near his best, and there's periods particularly against Shapovalov where he was being blown away. Had nothing to do with him digging deep to turn it around. They caved, and the unforced errors came.

Shapovalov is a debate for another day, but it's been years since I seen a player with such a huge game and potential, yet is actively going backwards. There was periods he blew Alcaraz away in the FO, only for the predictable collapse when the pressure came on.

If a proper manager got a hold of him, and he could put it all together, he has an ability I've rarely seen tbh. I don't think I've ever seen anyone hit groundstrokes like him when he's on it, the power is incredible. Even my girlfriend said it who knows nothing about tennis, saying you can nearly see the huge acceleration when he hits it.

He'd blow Djokovic off court if he ever cops on and plays to his potential. But sadly, it's actually worse he seems to be getting. He has the complete game though, just a matter of putting it together, mentally and consistently!

Jack Daw

I think Shapovalov's supposed greatness is being massively overstated.

Any player in any sport can look like an all time great at various stages, it's meaningless though if you can't do it with some degree of consistency and if there is zero consistency in performance (as there is with Shapovalov) then it's more a case of a decent player having some stand out moments that a great player who can't get his sh1t together.

He's played 8 times against Djokovic won none of the matches and only won 2 sets against him in those 8 matches and yet apparently he was being blown away for periods? Anyone can blow away any player for a short period of time in a match it means absolutely nothing.

The argument above about Shapovalov's potential could pretty much be made about every top 100 ranked tennis player in history.

Girly Gal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120756748#Comment_120756748

There's really nothing special about Shapovalov, he's just another one of those talented, but, flaky players. I agree that any player can hit a purple patch and blow the likes of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer away, but, if they can't sustain it for any length of time, then they can't really be classed as top players.

TomSweeney

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120731654#Comment_120731654

if if if if if ...

I am no fan of Nadal, but love this ...

https://youtu.be/2T6S9Kbh69Y

The Golden Miller

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120751080#Comment_120751080

Don't agree, many commentators of the game, even say Shapovalov possess an ability rarely seen before. I agree he's not proving it, but you can see at times what he's capable off. It's not a case of hitting purple patches, he regularly shows an ability rarely seen before, before he overthinks things and caves.

When he's on it, you can't stand toe to toe with him in a rally, his groundstrokes are too powerful, no one can live with it. He beats himself, more so than being outplayed. The second set in the FO against Alcaraz tells the story, playing naturally and battering him all over the court, sees the winning line in the set, over thinks it, then collapses.

There will be a point where he puts it all together, and people will be blown away, instead of ridiculing me, and I won't say 'i told you so, just enjoy it'. I'll state it now, he's as good, if not better, then anything we've ever seen, if he fulfils his potential. Watching his groundstrokes is a thing of beauty, raw natural power!