- Jun 25, 2019
- AFL Club
I’m going to go through stats and match’s up on who the greatest men’s tennis players of all time are. This is going to be very in depth so worth the read!
I've been meaning to do something regarding this, comparing Federer-Nadal-Djokovic. Not from a personal opinion point of view, from simply a statistics based look.I’m going to go through stats and match’s up on who the greatest men’s tennis players of all time are. This is going to be very in depth so worth the read!
I've been meaning to do something regarding this, comparing Federer-Nadal-Djokovic. Not from a personal opinion point of view, from simply a statistics based look.
Stats that I think should be included:
- Head to head in each of the 3 matchups, with a break down of surface (Hard, Clay, Grass, Indoor)
- Number of Semis, Finals, Titles in grand slams for each of them
- Who they had to defeat in the semi and final to win each of their grand slams
- Number of weeks at #1
- Number of titles and runner up
- Number of Year end #1
Your reasoning is laughable. Head to head doesn't supersede grand slam victories, number of titles and weeks at #1 and all the other records Federer holds.So for me it has to be between Nadal and Djokovic, and purely because of the head to head...Federer has been smashed by both. Grand slams are one measure but not the ultimate measure in my opinion, you also have to look at who they beat to win the finals. Fed had it pretty easy going early days, not many household names in their prime.
For me at this current point in time it’s Nadal, 3 more grand slams even though he has an inferior head to head with Novak. Novak wins this Aus open and I think things start to swing in his favour.
If you don't consider Federer, Nadal or djokovic as contenders that's your opinion. Their records, my observations and statements from past champions of the game certainly indicate that they should be considered. Of course there are others from past generations that should be considered.That's assuming any of the contenders are still playing.
but there can only be one goat! They certainly fit best era as a group ever, each generation will seemingly having the same conversation for there current dominators , it’s pointlessI think statistics will favour Djokovic and Nadal when everything is done and dusted, but I also don’t think it really matters anymore (imo). They’ve created history together and will all be remembered as titans of the sport.
Why have your own thoughts when you can regurgitate tabloid trash. Fairly simplistic argument, allow me to dissect it for you.Your reasoning is laughable. Head to head doesn't supersede grand slam victories, number of titles and weeks at #1 and all the other records Federer holds.
Smashed? Majority of victories by Nadal vs Federer has been on clay - one surface. It's like 1-6 Federer's favour the last seven times. Federer and Djoker matches have been very tight for the most part, and it's not like the H2H there is unassailable.
As for "had it pretty easy", well no, it's not "easy" to win so many GS titles. The players Federer faced - Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, etc were no sloushes either. Look at the field Nadal and Djokovic played with aside from Federer - he's beaten them all too. In fact, aside from Murray and Stan The Man, can you name a "household name" outside the big three?
If Federer was a little bit mentally stronger, he'd have 2-3 more GS titles and a positive H2H vs Djokovic. But he's still four ahead and that's all that matters. Can't see the latter sustaining his gamestyle at Federer's age.
Right, I'm a drone because reasons (never mind the fact I don't read tabloids). I don't even read newspapers regardless and you're so smugly confident I blindly read and nod my head at random articles? Get over yourself you git.Why have your own thoughts when you can regurgitate tabloid trash. Fairly simplistic argument, allow me to dissect it for you.
Where did I say superseded? Grand slams are clearly a key indicator, I take a balanced scorecard approach tennis is a complex game. In my view, and objectively speaking it’s hard to say someone is GOAT when they have been soundly beaten more often than not and particularly in the big moments. It’s like saying you’re a better artist than Pablo Picasso because you colour inside the lines.
Head to head on clay or head to head on grass, what’s your point? 1+1 is not 3. The fact that he has lost close matches to Djokovic reaffirms my point, a GOAT wins the big games. A GOAT should also winon all surfaces.
Aside from Safin, who was a part timer at best, the rest were just place holders between two great eras of tennis. Have a look at the stats and which players had the tougher match ups in grand slam finals. Not to mention also the tougher treatment with scheduling at tournaments and crowds etc. The big 3 have raised the game to such a high level that compare the next 20 best is not fair. Anyone of those would have been number 1 when Hewitt was or a more competitive number 2 than Andy, I have a good first serve and nothing else, Roddick. Did you know that when doing word finds sometimes the words are hidden up and down the page?
If Federer was more mentally strong, if you could think for yourself I would t be wasting my time now...
Don’t believe everything you read, sponsors have agendas and dictate the story...doesn’t mean it’s true.
Yes a compelling case for him to be considered the best of the current 3.Interesting stat I saw mentioned on twitter today. Federer had won 12 grand slams and Nadal 3 before djokovic won his first in 2008.