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

No, more consistent and effortless in the sense he can use it and rally off it better. It’s ridiculously smooth and effortless. It can be flat, soft, hard, angled. My point has 0 to do with safe. Some the BHs RF plays and gets winners off are just insane.

Gasquet’s BH is stunning, but appears to be more deliberate and thought out and measured.

I really think Gasquet’s BH gets a bit overrated, due to the rest of his game being quite average.

Of the three, what is the one single achievement that ranks greatest? I was thinking of it and cannot fathom, nor look past Roger’s ten consecutive GS finals’ appearances (2005 Wimbledon to 2007 U.S. Open inclusive).

He also did 8 consecutive (2008 FO to 2010 Australia inclusive).

Yes. Super achievement. I just think it’s winning same event many times. Nole has 9 Australians.

It’s the insane consistency of getting to 10 consecutive slams finals that trumps anything for me. 2.5 years straight of making all finals..

18/19 finals made between 2005 Wimbledon and 2010 Australia

Having Tom Brady, Mbappe and Ibrahimovic come along to watch you get your 23rd has to be up there on the achievement list :)

At least you're not discriminating against any of the 3 and accusing all three equally, which is fair. I think the main reason of their longevity is that they are clearly 3 great players, but, the following generations have proven to be exceptionally poor; Alcaraz looks to be the first genuine challenger to emerge and he is about 15 years younger than Djokovic, in the past, every 7/8 years there was a new generation of players dominating. There hasn't even been a player after Djokovic and before Alcaraz who would be of a similar level to the likes of Wawrinka in his prime. Even now if Federer and Nadal were somehow able to get back to the required fitness level, they would be Djokovic's main challengers, Nadal winning last years AO is proof of this.

Djokovic is not playing as well as he was in his prime, but, be doesn't have to, he will continue to win slams until his body let's him down as the opposition apart from possibly Alcaraz are extremely poor.

.q

A lot depends on the quality of the opposition Alcaraz will face in his career. At the moment he's a long way off, until he gets into double figures I wouldn't even consider him yet. If the standard of player coming through remains similar to the last 10 years, then he has a great chance to rack up the numbers, as outside of Djokovic there really isn't any great threats there and Djokovic is already in decline (still too good for the opposition). So Alcaraz if he really is the real deal has no excuse not to get the numbers as it looks like he will have a clear road once Djokovic departs, which will happen in the next few years. Would like to see Alcaraz overcome Djokovic before Djokovic departs, rather than taking over when Djokovic is gone.

What figure will Djokovic get to?

28 is my guess.

All three have serious question marks hanging over them.

Usain Bolt was the fastest man on earth by some distance but his speed started to wane by the time he reached 28. If you look at the sprinters who went into the mid-thirties they had all been banned for drug use at some stage. So here we have a 36 year old man who hasn't lost his speed. How does that happen?

Why did his speed start to wane at 28? His 3 Jamaican teammates, Powell, Blake and Carter were all banned. So I wouldn't be using him as a benchmark for normal, clean athletes because he has plenty of his own question marks.

Mistake

the debate is over.

i was a Nadal guy. loved how he stopped Federer from being the only guy on a certain level, and then ultimately beat him at Wimbledon. once that Wimbledon victory happened, I was in his corner.

but by any reasonable objective metric, Novak is the best to ever do it. and I would honestly go as far to say he is the greatest athlete the world has ever seen.

i've no doubt he'll get to at least 28. it wouldn't surprise me one jot if he got to 30.

we'll genuinely never see anything like the man again IMO.

Tennis is largely a skill based sport, sprinting isn't. You can't really improve in sprinting if you haven't the raw athleticism that you are born with.Hard work and tactical nous can get you a lot further in tennis than it can in a sport like athletics .Therefore comparing age of decline between the 2 is not relevant at all. Djokovic can compensate for any physical flaws he may have at this age by being technically and tactically proficient, you can't do that in sprinting.We saw this on Sunday when his net play was incredible which is an area he was weak at in the past, he's also massively improved his serve over the past 5 years or so.

Djokovic before 30 had a tougher competition , perhaps if his before 30 competition was the same as it is now he would have won closer to 20 grand slams before 30 and therefore his supposed same level of performance after 30 wouldn't be the case at all.

Also it is ridiculous that you imply Djokovic is doping and then unfavorably compare him with Bolt who's team mates have all been done for doping.Pick a better comparison if you are going to go down that line.

Djokoic was prepared to to forego a couple of grand slams and other major tournaments so as not to have to put any foreign substance in his body. Most people don't agree with his personal no-vac stance, but he's been completely consistent about it. It doesn't seem likely to me that he'd then choose to take performance enhancers.