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

Lmfao, the fact it has Borg behind Connors and McEnroe means it's a complete joke.

It doesn't matter, he's miles ahead of those two. Any chart that Borg has behind anybody from the mid 70's to early 80's is a joke.

And if it's based on more than slams then Connors should be one, Federer two and Lendl three.

As I said it's a complete joke.

You just decided to ignore my last post?

Explain to me how somebody with 21 more titles is behind somebody else. When you've done that then tell me how a player with 103 wins including 20 grand slams is behind a guy with 88 wins and 21 grand slams? How does that make any sense?

“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”

Different weightings are attached to various titles and achievements.

Behind all the headline numbers are mathematical calculations describe here

https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/glossary

Whilst one may not agree with the weightings given to the various career achievements/titles, it is completely logical.

Everyone is welcome to come up with their own calculation system and most already have, but have simplified it to an individual metric, eg. #GS titles or most visually attractive tennis.

It's not logical, head to heads are important. Borg wins over Connors,

The big three is different. Nadal leads both in grand slam matches but Djokovic leads Nadal in final wins by two but loses in grand slams by four.

Nadal leads Federer in almost all categories as does Djokovic but the math there will favour the younger players which is unfair.

Connors ahead of Borg is ridiculous, Connors ahead of Sampras is ridiculous.

I'll finish with a famous statement attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. 'Theres lies, damned lies and statistics'.

Basically your three options with a weak argument.

It's clearly flawed. When you see Connors ahead of Sampras and Borg it shows how flawed it is.

And just to clarify, Jimmy Connors is one of my favourite players of all time. I loved watching him play, never say die attitude and an entertainer as well.

Aesthetically speaking, Connors probably the ugliest tennis player ever....his tennis I mean.

If we could add this criteria then Roger clearly number 1. No players has ever played the game as aesthetically pretty as Roger.

Federer won a lot of easy titles earlier in his career, there was no one to challenge, same as when Sampras came on the scene and had to face the likes of McEnroe and Becker at Wimbledon with their wooden rackets, they never faced anything like that speed and power, it was a new breed.

I think this topic gets flogged to death. Speaking of Gasquet on another thread, I think it would be interesting it down to certain shots and strengths of the game.

For example. The best server ever. Sampras. Not the hardest ever but hardest to read and from nowhere, a bullet rocks by you. Speed the courts up and near impossible to beat him when serve firing. Gunslinger-esque. The combination of a seemingly lax disguise, to a short sudden burst made it near impossible to read.

Backhand. Obviously Gasquet . Seen people before say a few others had a better one, including Federer. Ye he does it naturally too, but when you really dissect it, can't hit the lines or deep into the court as consistently with his backhand, can't create the same angles or shots. On form, Gasquet could play this shot blindfolded and keep the ball on a string. His mastery of this one shot is otherworldly. He plays it purely on feel and instinct. No one can play it so naturally

Yeah but Federer is five years older so towards the end of his career while the other two were in their prime he couldn't compete at the same level.

If you just went with results with Federer 32 and younger I think that'd be a fairer reflection and I've no idea if that would work in his favour.

The last few years have seen both Djokovic and Nadal pick up handy slams too, with not much opposition, look at this year's USO, none of the next gen guys are left ( Medvedev, Tsitsipas & Zverev the main opposition to Djokovic & Nadal over the last few years),Thiem also looks finished. Younger guys like Alcaraz, Sinner look to have already overtaken the next gen. The standard isn't great at the moment and hasn't been for a few years.

Sorry, I thought you were replying to the post about using H2H records, not the one about Federer picking up easy titles earlier in his career.

Fed’s BH both more consistent and effortless, as well as prettier. Stan’s BH better, too. Gasquet top 5. Kuerten’s for me at number 3. Ahead of Gasquet.

I agree on Pete’s serve. Unreal.. Fed at number 2.

greatest display of serving I have ever seen was Fed’s v Roddick in 2009 SW19 final.

I think what you mean by consistent, in terms of Federer's backhand, is just he plays it safer i.e getting the ball back across the net and not that close to the lines, relative to Gasquet. Gasquet has much more variation on the shot, and can hit far deeper and closer to the lines consistently. The whip, spin and angles he can generate on the shot at will are beyond what the Federer backhand is capable off. Gasquet just has it in the flick of his wrist, and could probably play the shot blindfolded