Roger Federer is not the GOAT

[Maester]

Their head to head since 2012 really isn't that bad. Supposedly that's when Rafa began his decline? Djokovic leads 11-7 and some of those matches were closely contested. I think it would be unfair to discredit Djokovic, like you have done, when Nadal was still playing some good tennis. Even in their latest match-up in Doha, I don't even think Rafa was all too bad. I think it was a case of Djokovic just being too good on hard courts for him - that's where the majority of their past 15 or so matches have been played on.

When did I mention 2012? Nadal did better in their rivalry in both 2012 and 2013 - including the US Open final in 2013, on a hard court. While he did come back well from his late 2012 knee injury he hasn't come back as well from his more recent injury troubles in 2014 - it gets harder to do the older you get. Since 2014 their head to head is 7-1 in favour of Novak. You won't find a tennis fan who will say that post 2014 Australian Open Nadal has been the same as ever. The Nadal that Djokovic beat in Doha just lost to 32 year old Verdasco in the 1st round, it's clearly not Nadal at his best!

 

[bato]

When did I mention 2012? Nadal did better in their rivalry in both 2012 and 2013 - including the US Open final in 2013, on a hard court. I specifically said the last couple of years. While he did come back well from his late 2012 knee injury he hasn't come back as well from his more recent injury troubles in 2014 - it gets harder to do the older you get. Since 2014 their head to head is 7-1 in favour of Novak. You won't find a tennis fan who will say that post 2014 Australian Open Nadal has been the same as ever.

I just used it as an example.

Both players were playing well during 2011-2013 and Djokovic still came out on top 8 to 6.

Their head to head since 2014 is 7-1 because one player is in their prime and the other isn't in their prime. Same way, Nadal prime was too good for Djokovic back in 2009/2010. But weigh in other factors such as Djokovic not being nearly as good back then as he is now, not just tactically, but physically and mentally. Don't forget the whole Todd Martin debacle - basically ruined Djokovic's serve for a whole season.

If Nadal has been poor since 2014, then same way you can say Djokovic was poor in 2009/2010.

 

[Maester]

Djokovic came out well on top in 2011, Nadal was better in 2012 and 2013. I actually think 2011 was Djokovic's best season. The stats may say 2015 was better but I think the competition was greater in 2011. Nadal was definitely a lot better and Federer was better then too. Plus I think the guys from say 5-15 were mostly stronger in 2011 as well. If Djokovic could have maintained his 2011 form from 2012-2014 he'd probably be around 17 slams already.

I don't think it's really fair to compare 2009/10 Djokovic to 2014/15 Nadal. Nadal's problems have been largely caused by injuries, while Djokovic was at the start of his best years and simply not as good as Nadal and to a lesser extent Federer in those years.

Anyway, my whole point is that head to heads are not the most important factor. They can be skewed by all kinds of circumstances. What matters most is winning titles and rankings. Because tennis is played against the field.

 

[bato]

So Nadal not managing his body properly is something he can't be blamed for? What about a coach stuffing up Djokovic's serve in 2010?

2011 (players 5-15):

Ferrer
Tsonga
Berdych
Fish
Tipsarevic
Almagro
Del Potro
Simon
Soderling
Roddick
Monfils

2015:
Nadal
Berdych
Ferrer
Nishi
Gasquet
Tsonga
Isner
Anderson
Cilic
Raonic
Simon

I certainly know which group of players are rated higher.

Also, last time I checked, Nadal wasn't injured last year.

 

[Maester]

A player is responsible for their coaching. And a coach doesn't serve for a player. Injuries are often just down to luck, it's not like there's a magical formula to avoid all injuries. Nadal may not have been injured last year but he hasn't been the same player. Hewitt wasn't injured every year of his career either but he never got back to his best once he started getting a string of injuries. Anyway, you can argue until you're blue in the face, but you won't change my opinion that Nadal has typically had the better of Djokovic when he's been at full fitness and form. Especially at slams. And we may never see Nadal back to somewhere near his best. My argument is simply that head to head is often distorted and not the most valuable statistic - even when comparing players who are practically the same age.

I think Djokovic is very likely to go down as the greater player. But if Nadal had not had any injury problems through his career I think there's a fair chance he'd have ended up greater (and surpassed Federer too). Then again, what if Federer never got mono or never had back issues? At the end of the day what really matters is titles, rankings and longevity. These are how players are compared across history.

And yeah I rate that 2011 group better. Again, this is just an opinion. I think Roddick, Soderling and Del Potro were better than the likes of Nishikori, Raonic and Cilic, while guys like Ferrer, Berdych, Simon, Tsonga and even Gasquet were all better in 2011 than they are now at 30+. The bigger factor though is that Djokovic in 2011 was up against a prime Nadal and a not that old Federer, while last year he was sort of playing his normal excellent level while everyone else was falling away. Perfectly happy to agree to disagree on that. Both 2011 and 2015 were sensational seasons. And it's hard to see who will stop him this year unless Murray really gets going again or someone like Raonic makes a real push to the top.

 

[bato]

A player is responsible for their coaching. And a coach doesn't serve for a player. Injuries are often just down to luck, it's not like there's a magical formula to avoid all injuries. Nadal may not have been injured last year but he hasn't been the same player. Hewitt wasn't injured every year of his career either but he never got back to his best once he started getting a string of injuries. Anyway, you can argue until you're blue in the face, but you won't change my opinion that Nadal has typically had the better of Djokovic when he's been at full fitness and form. Especially at slams. And we may never see Nadal back to somewhere near his best. My argument is simply that head to head is often distorted and not the most valuable statistic - even when comparing players who are practically the same age.

I think Djokovic is very likely to go down as the greater player. But if Nadal had not had any injury problems through his career I think there's a fair chance he'd have ended up greater (and surpassed Federer too). Then again, what if Federer never got mono or never had back issues? At the end of the day what really matters is titles, rankings and longevity. These are how players are compared across history.

And yeah I rate that 2011 group better. Again, this is just an opinion. I think Roddick, Soderling and Del Potro were better than the likes of Nishikori, Raonic and Cilic, while guys like Ferrer, Berdych, Simon, Tsonga and even Gasquet were all better in 2011 than they are now at 30+. The bigger factor though is that Djokovic in 2011 was up against a prime Nadal and a not that old Federer, while last year he was sort of playing his normal excellent level while everyone else was falling away. Perfectly happy to agree to disagree on that. Both 2011 and 2015 were sensational seasons. And it's hard to see who will stop him this year unless Murray really gets going again or someone like Raonic makes a real push to the top.

Todd Martin failed to deliver on what he promised. That's not Djokovic's fault whatosever. There was even some suggestion he purposely sabotaged Novak's serve.

As for Nadal, he has always had the most physical game in the history of the game. Not once has he tried changing things up to make himself less injury prone. Look at Novak and he's basically transformed himself into an elastic rubber ball - while still maintaining a high level. So, yes, it's just as much as Rafa's fault. He knows the risks of his demanding game style.

Fed had mono in 2008 and still made the Aussie Open semi. He was still playing good tennis. Heck, you could even argue he's playing better now than 2005-2008.

The two groups are debatable but there's more potential in the second group and more big time players.

 

[Maester]

I think the suggestion that Todd Martin was intentionally trying to sabotage Djokovic is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Sometimes coaches work out, sometimes they don't. The player is the one with the racquet in hand. And it's not like Djokovic had a terrible season in 2010. He was still 3rd in the world and made QF or better at every slam.

Yeah exactly Federer still played pretty good tennis in 2008 despite having mono, so perhaps 2008 would have been another 2007 esque year for him if he hadn't. But who knows. There's lots of what if's in tennis and players like Del Potro and Hewitt have been a lot more unfortunate than someone like Federer or Nadal. Would have been particularly interesting to see how Del Potro would have gone if he'd have never got those wrist problems. Multiple slam winner IMO. I agree with you on Nadal's style btw, but not everyone who gets a knee or wrist injury plays like Nadal. Djokovic could get injured at some point too despite all his precautions. Sometimes you just get unlucky.

Potential has nothing to do with comparing those groups IMO because we're just looking at contained individual years and the levels in those years. What I find interesting though is that in neither of those years was a genuinely young player in the top 15! Hopefully some young players emerge soon because men's tennis needs new champions to come through.

 

[Tulip]

Well to be fair, Djokovic doesn't have the cool colour coordinated nike clothes and bandana designed to attract the attention average consumer, or the aesthetically beautiful shots, like the error prone backhand. And he's Serbian, which grates a lot of closet racist Westerners. Djokovic will never be the fan favorite. But his best comes out in pressure situations. He grew up with bombs being dropped from US airplanes all around him FFS.

Watching Federer play tennis is the closest thing we have to art in sport. David Foster Wallace put it pretty well, and that was years and years ago now. Federer may have lost his aerobic capacity, but he's definitely refined his technique since the glory days to become an even more complete player. Watching Djokovic play tennis is beautiful in its own right, but it definitely appeals more to the organised mind than the artistic. Djokovic's strength comes from his complete lack of weakness, systematically scary stuff. Federer's strength comes from the fact that he can do things that nobody else can.

Its a bit ridiculous to call out Federer on the fact that he keeps his hair out of his eyes and wears nice clothes. Especially when half the competition wore gradients. Federer is a class act, Djokovic is a class act. Your argument isn't actually a bad one, because Djokovic's record is brilliant, but I can't understand why you're so puerile about it. Six or seven years ago, lots of people were cheering on underdogs and wishing Federer would stop winning so often. When Novak reaches 33 or 34, if he's even still playing, no doubt people will look at him as the last of the old guard and appreciate him. Lets not even get started on the fact that very few people in the West still think about Yugoslavia, let alone people who are posting in here who're probably mostly or all 30 and under.

 

[Tulip]

Fed had mono in 2008 and still made the Aussie Open semi. He was still playing good tennis. Heck, you could even argue he's playing better now than 2005-2008.

An argument Hudu Gurusingha keeps on making. Federer is playing more refined tennis than he ever has, but he hasn't got anywhere near the running power that he used to have. If ones strength of tennis is judged aesthetically, than he is playing 'better' than he ever has. If ones strength of tennis is judged by their win/loss record, as Djokovic diehards are so particular about, then he's nowhere near his best.

 

[gaelictiogar]

An argument Hudu Gurusingha keeps on making. Federer is playing more refined tennis than he ever has, but he hasn't got anywhere near the running power that he used to have. If ones strength of tennis is judged aesthetically, than he is playing 'better' than he ever has. If ones strength of tennis is judged by their win/loss record, as Djokovic diehards are so particular about, then he's nowhere near his best.

It has never happened that a man in his mid 30s has played "his best tennis", In fact no player in his early 30s has ever played his best tennis. Federer is not playing his best tennis now and no player ever will play his best tennis in his mid thirties.

Tennis is fundamentally about speed of foot, of eye of reflex and of thought. The last survives which is why Fed being a master can survive against all but the best but the first three decline. Federer is nowhere near his best. he can't be. Look at all the stats. 20 to 26 is the most productive window with 28 being an outside margin of one's absolute peak. 30 sees the door closing.

 

[BuddyHawk]

Buddhawk, Federer dominated the players of his generation during their peak years to such an extent they had no chance of going down as true greats. If say Djokovic was the same age as Federer there's no saying whether he would have reduced Federer's success in that 04-07 period either. We simply don't know. Andy Roddick was undoubtedly an excellent player for example and if Federer hadn't been around would have won a number of slams. He beat both Andy Murray and Djokovic in slams in 2009, when he was near the end of his good period and they had clearly broken through. It is really difficult to compare eras.

You're spot on - it's extremely difficult to compare eras. But this entire thread is premised on comparing the relative strengths of players who played in different periods, dealing with different opponents and even in some instances (Laver, for example), surfaces, given grass-court tennis used to be a much bigger part of the tour than it is today.

Post-2007, the Gland Slam honour role (after last night) reads Nadal and Djokovic on 11 and Federer on 5, with Murray and Wawrinka the only other multiple winners. This stat isn't fair on Federer, as Djokovic and Nadal are approx five years younger and Fed's game has declined (especially in terms of his mobility) since his halcyon 04-07 years.

But I think the level of competition has played a part, too; Roddick, Hewitt etc were very fine players, but were never at Djokovic and Nadal's level. Indeed, Fed's biggest rival in 06-07 was a 20/21-year-old Nadal, and while he was an elite player then, he continued to improve, especially on hard courts.

Ultimately I'm very much on the fence with this debate, but I do think that pure numbers don't tell the full story and that Fed's 17 Slams (like anyone else's success) need to be put in some context. Even if, as you rightly say, you can never truly compare the relative strengths of different eras.

Slightly off-topic, but IMO Sampras is someone who's claim to G.O.A.T-ness seems to be underestimated in the post-Federer era. He never won the French (or even made a final there), but when his serve was on he was virtually unbeatable. It'd be fascinating to watch him serve to Djokovic - the best returner of serve I've ever seen - if one of them could be put in a time machine and transported either 15 years forward or back.

 

[Connoisseur]

You can't argue with Federer's record. 17 Grand Slams is phenomenal, and something I never thought I'd see achieved in men's tennis. His longevity is also a big boost to his G.O.A.T claims.

However..........while comparing sporting eras can be a fraught exercise, for the purposes of this discussion I think it's important to consider when Federer won his Slams, as well as how many. And when you look back over his amazing career, it's the 2004-07 period that stands out, when he clamed 11 of his 17 titles. So that's 11 in just a four-year period, when he's been in the upper echelon of the tour - top three, top four, if not number 1 - for 13 years now.

Let's look at who his main opposition was during his 2004-07 reign:

-Sampras had called it a day; in fact it was rather serendipitous that the year after Sampras retired (2002), another champion laid his first mark on his own quest to be the G.O.A.T, by winning the '03 Wimbledon
-Agassi hung around for a couple of years (he played Fed in the 2005 US Open final), but he wasn't the force he was during his 1999-2002 renaissance, when he got back to the top of the tour after losing his way from 96-98
-Roddick was a good player, but he lacked the tricks to really trouble Federer anywhere other than on grass, where he pushed him hard in the 04 and 09 Wimbledon finals
-Hewitt was a tremendous fighter and got the absolute best out of his ability, but lacked the big weapons of most other top-5 players
-Safin had the ability - his semi-final win over Federer in the 2005 AO is one of my all-time favourite matches - but was shockingly inconsistent and injury prone. He really should have won more than two Slams
-Juan-Carlos Ferrero was very good on clay, but so-so on other surfaces (although he did make the '03 US Open final)
-David Nabaldian was consistently competitive, but didn't quite have the array of strokes to topple the best in the big tournaments; kind of like David Ferrer in this generation

Then you have the other members of the big four, who were in their relative tennis infancy:

-Nadal was already the king of clay (beating Fed at the French in 05-07), and competed well in the 06-07 Wimbledon finals, but wasn't quite the all-surface gun he was during his peak 08-13 period (when he won 10 of his 14 Slams)
-Djokovic had a break-out year as a 20-year-old in 07, reaching the semis of the French and at Wimbledon and the final of the US Open, leading into winning his first Slam in Melbourne in 08
-Murray's first performance of note in a Slam was the 08 US Open, when he lost to Fed in the final

So while, as I said at the start of my post, comparing the relative strength of eras can be a dangerous business, there's no doubt in my eyes that Federer's best years coincided with a weak period in men's tennis, at least at the pointy end of the tour. The fact Marcus Baghdatis and Fernando Gonzales were AO finalists is evidence enough.

But I guess the big question is then whether Fed's reduced dominance post-2007 (and to be fair, he's still been bloody great) is due to the improved quality of competition, or his own level dropping slightly since his mid-2000s peak? Tbh, it's probably a combination of both.

So is Federer the G.O.A.T? Quite possibly, but I don't think the fact he boasts the most impressive set of numbers precludes others from the conversation, as context is also important. He's in the mix, alongside (imo) Djokovic, Sampras, Nadal and Laver.

-David Nabaldian was consistently competitive, but didn't quite have the array of strokes to topple the best in the big tournaments; kind of like David Ferrer in this generation

This speaks volumes of Ferrer's longevity because both Nalbandian and Ferrer were born in the same year and Ferrer is just 1 year younger than Hewitt who's been treading water (playing for the love of the game, rarely making it to the 2nd week of Grand Slams) in the tour for the last 5 or 6 years.

 

[Connoisseur]

Nadal shouldn't be in the convo for mine, Dominated on 1 court and is sub par in the other 3 majors to date, To be a GOAT contender you need a more all rounded game.

From what I've seen it's Fed from Novak, Nadal a distant 3rd.

He was also assisted by the slowing down of all non-clay surfaces, in response to complaints of the dominance of big hitters and servers in the late 90s an early 00s, and modern racquet technology that allowed him to generate a ridiculous amount of top spin that would've been impossible with older racquets and as a result was able to transfer that style to other non-clay surfaces and find regular success there; something that past clay court champions would never have dreamt of achieving.

IMO if Nadal had been born a decade earlier, or even just 5 years, he will not have won a single slam outside of Roland Garros and would not be perceived any differently than Gustavo Kuerten. I'm certain that Wimbledon officials deliberately slowed down their grass surface to help Nadal's defensive clay court game although the introduction of the new grass was disguised as being about preventing the court from going bald as quickly it did with the old grass or something.

Given his popularity it's understandable that they would want him to hang around and make it to 2nd week of Wimbledon as it boosted their bottom line rather than be bundled out in the 1st week like most clay courters that came before him.

But to me that's something that diminishes Nadal's claim of GOAT and the fact his game is based more around endurance and stamina than pure tennis skill and ability.

 

[gaelictiogar]

He was also assisted by the slowing down of all non-clay surfaces, in response to complaints of the dominance of big hitters and servers in the late 90s an early 00s, and modern racquet technology that allowed him to generate a ridiculous amount of top spin that would've been impossible with older racquets and as a result was able to transfer that style to other non-clay surfaces and find regular success there; something that past clay court champions would never have dreamt of achieving.

IMO if Nadal had been born a decade earlier, or even just 5 years, he will not have won a single slam outside of Roland Garros and would not be perceived any differently than Gustavo Kuerten. I'm certain that Wimbledon officials deliberately slowed down their grass surface to help Nadal's defensive clay court game although the introduction of the new grass was disguised as being about preventing the court from going bald as quickly it did with the old grass or something.

Given his popularity it's understandable that they would want him to hang around and make it to 2nd week of Wimbledon as it boosted their bottom line rather than be bundled out in the 1st week like most clay courters that came before him.

But to me that's something that diminishes Nadal's claim of GOAT and the fact his game is based more around endurance and stamina than pure tennis skill and ability.

I fully agree with your first paragraph.

Were Wimbledon "fixing it" to get Nadal into the later rounds? I doubt it.

Does the premier event in a sport ( and Wimbledon unarguably is in tennis ) have to do that ? No. Would the British Open fix its course to ensure mcilroy or Spieth figures? Frankly I doubt it.

However your basic contention that without thechanges in equipment and courts Nadal would be in single figures for slams is almost unarguably right. Both Fed nd novak are clearly more talented....easily so.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Dominating him at Wimbledon? He beat him in one final out of 3 in an extremely close 5 setter. That was in 2008, probably Nadal's 2nd best year on tour - and not in Federer's top 5 seasons.

Dominate is perhaps the wrong term, but Nadal beat Federer at Federer's peak at his favourite surface.

 

[Collingwoodity]

He was also assisted by the slowing down of all non-clay surfaces, in response to complaints of the dominance of big hitters and servers in the late 90s an early 00s, and modern racquet technology that allowed him to generate a ridiculous amount of top spin that would've been impossible with older racquets and as a result was able to transfer that style to other non-clay surfaces and find regular success there; something that past clay court champions would never have dreamt of achieving.

IMO if Nadal had been born a decade earlier, or even just 5 years, he will not have won a single slam outside of Roland Garros and would not be perceived any differently than Gustavo Kuerten. I'm certain that Wimbledon officials deliberately slowed down their grass surface to help Nadal's defensive clay court game although the introduction of the new grass was disguised as being about preventing the court from going bald as quickly it did with the old grass or something.

Given his popularity it's understandable that they would want him to hang around and make it to 2nd week of Wimbledon as it boosted their bottom line rather than be bundled out in the 1st week like most clay courters that came before him.

But to me that's something that diminishes Nadal's claim of GOAT and the fact his game is based more around endurance and stamina than pure tennis skill and ability.

What's your excuse for Nadal winning the US and Australian opens?

 

[Collingwoodity]

I just used it as an example.

Both players were playing well during 2011-2013 and Djokovic still came out on top 8 to 6.

Their head to head since 2014 is 7-1 because one player is in their prime and the other isn't in their prime. Same way, Nadal prime was too good for Djokovic back in 2009/2010. But weigh in other factors such as Djokovic not being nearly as good back then as he is now, not just tactically, but physically and mentally. Don't forget the whole Todd Martin debacle - basically ruined Djokovic's serve for a whole season.

If Nadal has been poor since 2014, then same way you can say Djokovic was poor in 2009/2010.

I think you are wrong here.

Djokovic was poor in 2009/2010 because of ability and application not because of injury or age.

 

[bato]

I think you are wrong here.

Djokovic was poor in 2009/2010 because of ability and application not because of injury or age.

I did say he was poor because of ability/bad coaching. Nadal is guilty of the latter just as much. I've already mentioned the physically demanding game style he has, no need to go over it again.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I just can't see any other way than Grand Slam titles to declare a person GOAT. Head to head simply won't change the Grand slam title facts.
At this very minute Federer can lay claim to being the GOAT, now in just a few short years Djokovic may have surpassed him in titles and then can lay claim to being the GOAT. This is not science it is simple facts.
Rod Laver could possibly have some claim to it other than Federer but Nadal and Djokovic certainly cannot until they have won more Grand Slam titles. Head to head means very little in this subject.

 

[bato]

An argument Hudu Gurusingha keeps on making. Federer is playing more refined tennis than he ever has, but he hasn't got anywhere near the running power that he used to have. If ones strength of tennis is judged aesthetically, than he is playing 'better' than he ever has. If ones strength of tennis is judged by their win/loss record, as Djokovic diehards are so particular about, then he's nowhere near his best.

Refining his game may have just made him better, no? He's hitting his backhand much better, he's coming into the net with succession far more regularly, his forehand maybe isn't as strong as it was, he's serving just as well etc. I'd say the difference is very little, if not, a small improvement from 2006.

 

[bato]

It has never happened that a man in his mid 30s has played "his best tennis", In fact no player in his early 30s has ever played his best tennis. Federer is not playing his best tennis now and no player ever will play his best tennis in his mid thirties.

Tennis is fundamentally about speed of foot, of eye of reflex and of thought. The last survives which is why Fed being a master can survive against all but the best but the first three decline. Federer is nowhere near his best. he can't be. Look at all the stats. 20 to 26 is the most productive window with 28 being an outside margin of one's absolute peak. 30 sees the door closing.

Wawrinka says hello. Not quite 'mid-30s' but will still go nice and strong for the next few years, considering he started his 'peak' super late in his career.

Heck, Ken Rosewall won 3 GS titles as a 35-36 year old? Agassi won a GS as a 32 year old.

I think Fed was more consistently good back in 2006, but fast forward to 2015-2016 and he's showing more 'complete' tennis every few matches. He's obviously more prone to the odd Andreas Seppi match, but refining his game into the guy he is today has shown a huge improvement in his game.

 

[Brad Goodman]

I just can't see any other way than Grand Slam titles to declare a person GOAT. Head to head simply won't change the Grand slam title facts.
At this very minute Federer can lay claim to being the GOAT, now in just a few short years Djokovic may have surpassed him in titles and then can lay claim to being the GOAT. This is not science it is simple facts.
Rod Laver could possibly have some claim to it other than Federer but Nadal and Djokovic certainly cannot until they have won more Grand Slam titles. Head to head means very little in this subject.

Tend to agree with this. Murray and Djokovic being so close in age and experience allows for H2H being a good indicator for their matchup however unless players are at their peaks together you can't really use it.

 

[bato]

I just can't see any other way than Grand Slam titles to declare a person GOAT. Head to head simply won't change the Grand slam title facts.
At this very minute Federer can lay claim to being the GOAT, now in just a few short years Djokovic may have surpassed him in titles and then can lay claim to being the GOAT. This is not science it is simple facts.
Rod Laver could possibly have some claim to it other than Federer but Nadal and Djokovic certainly cannot until they have won more Grand Slam titles. Head to head means very little in this subject.

You do realise that in a few years time, people will say ''Djokovic beat low quality opponents to win these slams, Fed had tougher opponents" blah blah.

Oh wait, that's already being said?

 

[Tulip]

Refining his game may have just made him better, no? He's hitting his backhand much better, he's coming into the net with succession far more regularly, his forehand maybe isn't as strong as it was, he's serving just as well etc. I'd say the difference is very little, if not, a small improvement from 2006.

The improvements he's made in his ball control haven't come close to matching what he's lost in aerobic capacity.

 

[Tulip]

You do realise that in a few years time, people will say ''Djokovic beat low quality opponents to win these slams, Fed had tougher opponents" blah blah.

Oh wait, that's already being said?

Its all 'if, if, if'. If Novak were a few years younger, he'd be a huge chance to sweep the field every year considering the dearth of real quality amongst the younger generation. If he were a few years older, he, Federer and Nadal might all be sitting on a fairly even standing with between 8-12 grand slams each.