Who is the true goat in Tennis ?

Remove this Banner Ad

PhatBoy said:
To win any award or competition multiple times you would need to prove your longevity would you not? That’s part of the whole numbers thing - Borg is probably the exception as he won his titles in an incredible compressed timespan but everyone else with lots of titles has demonstrated their greatness by doing it for a long time
Click to expand...

Thanks for the discussion.. pleasant.. enjoyed it.

Chat about football some time.
 
BringouttheGimp said:
How niche is the clay surface compared to the other 3.. Nadal grew up on it.. 13.. he was always gonna Odyssey Travolta it. Are the other 3 an even playing field?
Click to expand...


It’s not niche though is it? Most Western European players favour it, South Americans favour it, and there is a season for it that goes beyond just a token warm up for the French Open. It’s a long way behind hardcourt for prevalence but it’s a big enough product that it’s beyond ‘niche.’

It also brings players into the equation who otherwise would not be - the genuine one court specialists like Kuerten or JCF and Brugera. The fact that no player from that mould has someone been able to nick a title from Nadal is indicative of his quality (and the quality of the other two for that matter that they consistently have beaten the specialists)
 
PhatBoy said:
It’s not niche though is it? Most Western European players favour it, South Americans favour it, and there is a season for it that goes beyond just a token warm up for the French Open. It’s a long way behind hardcourt for prevalence but it’s a big enough product that it’s beyond ‘niche.’

It also brings players into the equation who otherwise would not be - the genuine one court specialists like Kuerten or JCF and Brugera. The fact that no player from that mould has someone been able to nick a title from Nadal is indicative of his quality (and the quality of the other two for that matter that they consistently have beaten the specialists)
Click to expand...

Quote from Bolletierri.. a gift re.. enjoy..

Screenshot_20220201-170009_Gallery.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BringouttheGimp said:
Quote from Bolletierri.. a gift re.. enjoy..

View attachment 1319935
Click to expand...


I don’t know what that shows that everyone doesn’t know. He doesn’t have a weakness it’s dead right. He has the most chink-free armour in the game. Nadal has the least, out of the three: his serve is a weakness. He also has the best return, the best court coverage, and by far the highest ratio of impossible shots.

Being bereft of a weakness does not makes one’s strengths more impressive
 
BringouttheGimp said:
How niche is the clay surface compared to the other 3.. Nadal grew up on it.. 13.. he was always gonna Odyssey Travolta it. Are the other 3 more of an even playing field?
Click to expand...
Clay, hard and Grass have equal weighting for me. GOAT of tennis isnt about who's best including/excluding a surface. It's about who can play the sport well regardless of the surface.

I also think doubles plays a part but it's largely irrelevant now because the best don't play it.
 
PhatBoy said:
I often think ‘the best tennis I’ve ever seen from anyone is Federer at his peak’ and then I have to remind myself that at his peak Nadal came along and started beating him. I tend to agree now that Federer is the ‘worst’ of the 3 if there is such a thing. As someone said earlier I think if there were more big tournaments/slams on clay, there wouldn’t even be an argument. The fact that Nadal has surpassed the number of the other two, with only one slam on a slow surface, is mind boggling
Click to expand...

But surely the alternate also applies? If more tournaments were on grass (like there were for most of the history of the sport), there wouldn't be a discussion and Federer would be the greatest. As it is, there are far more big tournaments (1000s etc.) on clay than on grass. This is before we take into account the slowing down of grass and hard court surfaces that have favoured Nadal more than any other of the big 3 (watch Federer vs Agassi 2005 US Open Final and look at the speed of the courts then versus now).

To me they all have their benefits over each other and there is no clear no.1:

Federer: Most aesthetically pleasing to watch, would be easily the best of the the Big 3 if they played in another era (wooden racquets, faster courts, serve and volley game, flatter groundstrokes etc.). Can play at an elite level in his late 30's and potentially early 40's due to his style of play. Paved the way and set the standard for the others to match.

Nadal: Obviously the best of all-time on clay, and no player has ever been as dominant on one surface. Brought a new level of physicality and fitness to the game and possesses one of the most dominant shots in the history of the game (top spin forehand). One of the greatest fighters in any sport.

Djokovic: Statistically the best of the three. Will probably end up with the most slams assuming his anti-vax stance doesn't cost him further. The best of the three across all surfaces (hard, grass, clay) and the most suited to the "modern" game - movement, baseline, stamina - whilst also having no real weaknesses (unlike Federer and Nadal).
 
Walter H White said:
But surely the alternate also applies? If more tournaments were on grass (like there were for most of the history of the sport), there wouldn't be a discussion and Federer would be the greatest. As it is, there are far more big tournaments (1000s etc.) on clay than on grass. This is before we take into account the slowing down of grass and hard court surfaces that have favoured Nadal more than any other of the big 3 (watch Federer vs Agassi 2005 US Open Final and look at the speed of the courts then versus now).

To me they all have their benefits over each other and there is no clear no.1:

Federer: Most aesthetically pleasing to watch, would be easily the best of the the Big 3 if they played in another era (wooden racquets, faster courts, serve and volley game, flatter groundstrokes etc.). Can play at an elite level in his late 30's and potentially early 40's due to his style of play. Paved the way and set the standard for the others to match.

Nadal: Obviously the best of all-time on clay, and no player has ever been as dominant on one surface. Brought a new level of physicality and fitness to the game and possesses one of the most dominant shots in the history of the game (top spin forehand). One of the greatest fighters in any sport.

Djokovic: Statistically the best of the three. Will probably end up with the most slams assuming his anti-vax stance doesn't cost him further. The best of the three across all surfaces (hard, grass, clay) and the most suited to the "modern" game - movement, baseline, stamina - whilst also having no real weaknesses (unlike Federer and Nadal).
Click to expand...


But grass IS a niche surface. There isn’t a single tournament on it that’s not related to Wimbledon. And at any rate, since Rafa learned how to play away from clay, Federer has only won Wimbledon three times in 14 editions. Nadal has been able to match and beat him. It’s not like clay is a niche surface, it’s got an entire season dedicated to it, a third of major tour tournaments are held on it so there are dozens of players at any one time who hone their game for it, prepare for it and thrive on it specifically and none have made a dent.

Yes hardcourts have slowed but they still suit two of the three more than they suit Nadal. Let’s say there were 2 majors each on clay, grass and hardcourt Nadal at various stages would have snagged, as he has in the current reality, less slams than the other two on grass and hardcourt but way more than they would manage on clay.
 
PhatBoy said:
But grass IS a niche surface. There isn’t a single tournament on it that’s not related to Wimbledon. And at any rate, since Rafa learned how to play away from clay, Federer has only won Wimbledon three times in 14 editions. Nadal has been able to match and beat him. It’s not like clay is a niche surface, it’s got an entire season dedicated to it, a third of major tour tournaments are held on it so there are dozens of players at any one time who hone their game for it, prepare for it and thrive on it specifically and none have made a dent.

Yes hardcourts have slowed but they still suit two of the three more than they suit Nadal. Let’s say there were 2 majors each on clay, grass and hardcourt Nadal at various stages would have snagged, as he has in the current reality, less slams than the other two on grass and hardcourt but way more than they would manage on clay.
Click to expand...
But you raised the point that if there were more tournaments on clay, then there wouldn't even be a conversation. That's true. But the reverse is also true. And grass wasn't always a niche surface. It was the dominant surface for the majority of the history of the sport. The changes in this era have suited Nadal more than the other two (more clay, less grass) and slowing down of traditionally fast surfaces (hard/grass). I'm not convinced Nadal would have won anywhere near as many slams/1000s on hard courts/grass if they weren't slowed down. Djokovic perhaps benefitted from this as well but he has proven himself to be an exceptional grass court player (and on all surfaces if we are being honest - if it wasn't for Nadal he would probably be one of the greatest clay court players of all-time) and I think he still would have won many titles on faster courts.
 
thetank said:
And yet, despite less apparent weaknesses to his game, having more court surfaces favourable to him, and having a superior run with injury, Djokovic has less grand slam titles.

Can't be the goat in light of this.
Click to expand...

Weird logic - So Novak's adaptability in more events across the planet means he is a worse player all-round.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mcgarnacle said:
Weird logic - So Novak's adaptability in more events across the planet means he is a worse player all-round.
Click to expand...

How is that his logic?

That’s not what he’s saying at all.
He’s saying Djokovic’s game is lent towards more adaptability and capability of winning on surfaces that suit his game and more of them and he still has less crowns.
Saying the Wimbledon centre court suits Wayne Arthurs’ game perfectly doesn’t mean he’s a better player there than Rafael Nadal so I don’t know why you would draw that conclusion from the comment you responded to
 
Federer = 7 out of 20 slams = Defeated Nadal and/or Djokovic along the way to win the slam.
  • 1). Wimbledon 2006 (F) vs Nadal
  • 2). Australian Open 2007 (4R) vs Djokovic
  • 3). Wimbledon 2007 (F) vs Nadal
  • 4). US Open 2007 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 5). US Open 2008 (SF) vs Djokovic
  • 6). Wimbledon 2012 (SF) vs Djokovic
  • 7). Australian Open 2017 (F) vs Nadal
Nadal = 14 out of 21 slams = Defeated Federer and/or Djokovic along the way to win the slam.
  • 1). French Open 2005 (SF) vs Federer
  • 2). French Open 2006 (QF) vs Djokovic and (F) vs Federer
  • 3). French Open 2007 (SF) vs Djokovic and (F) vs Federer
  • 4). French Open 2008 (SF) vs Djokovic and (F) vs Federer
  • 5). Wimbledon 2008 (F) vs Federer
  • 6). Australian Open 2009 (F) vs Federer
  • 7). US Open 2010 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 8). French Open 2011 (F) vs Federer
  • 9). French Open 2012 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 10). French Open 2013 (SF) vs Djokovic
  • 11). US Open 2013 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 12). French Open 2014 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 13). French Open 2019 (SF) vs Federer
  • 14). French Open 2020 (F) vs Djokovic
Djokovic = 14 out of 20 slams = Defeated Nadal and/or Federer along the way to win the slam.
  • 1). Australian Open 2008 (SF) vs Federer
  • 2). Australian Open 2011 (SF) vs Federer
  • 3). Wimbledon 2011 (F) vs Nadal
  • 4). US Open 2011 (SF) vs Federer and (F) vs Nadal
  • 5). Australian Open 2012 (F) vs Nadal
  • 6). Wimbledon 2014 (F) vs Federer
  • 7). Wimbledon 2015 (F) vs Federer
  • 8). US Open 2015 (F) vs Federer
  • 9). Australian Open 2016 (SF) vs Federer
  • 10). Wimbledon 2018 (SF) vs Nadal
  • 11). Australian Open 2019 (F) vs Nadal
  • 12). Wimbledon 2019 (F) vs Federer
  • 13). Australian Open 2020 (SF) vs Federer
  • 14). French Open 2021 (SF) vs Nadal
To win slams, Nadal and Djokovic have had to beat one another + Federer the majority of the time.

65% of Federer's slams occurred without him having to play Nadal and/or Djokovic along the way, therefore paving the way for him to have an easier draw.
 
PonsfordMagpie said:
Federer = 7 out of 20 slams = Defeated Nadal and/or Djokovic along the way to win the slam.
  • 1). Wimbledon 2006 (F) vs Nadal
  • 2). Australian Open 2007 (4R) vs Djokovic
  • 3). Wimbledon 2007 (F) vs Nadal
  • 4). US Open 2007 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 5). US Open 2008 (SF) vs Djokovic
  • 6). Wimbledon 2012 (SF) vs Djokovic
  • 7). Australian Open 2017 (F) vs Nadal
Nadal = 14 out of 21 slams = Defeated Federer and/or Djokovic along the way to win the slam.
  • 1). French Open 2005 (SF) vs Federer
  • 2). French Open 2006 (QF) vs Djokovic and (F) vs Federer
  • 3). French Open 2007 (SF) vs Djokovic and (F) vs Federer
  • 4). French Open 2008 (SF) vs Djokovic and (F) vs Federer
  • 5). Wimbledon 2008 (F) vs Federer
  • 6). Australian Open 2009 (F) vs Federer
  • 7). US Open 2010 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 8). French Open 2011 (F) vs Federer
  • 9). French Open 2012 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 10). French Open 2013 (SF) vs Djokovic
  • 11). US Open 2013 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 12). French Open 2014 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 13). French Open 2019 (SF) vs Federer
  • 14). French Open 2020 (F) vs Djokovic
Djokovic = 14 out of 20 slams = Defeated Nadal and/or Federer along the way to win the slam.
  • 1). Australian Open 2008 (SF) vs Federer
  • 2). Australian Open 2011 (SF) vs Federer
  • 3). Wimbledon 2011 (F) vs Nadal
  • 4). US Open 2011 (SF) vs Federer and (F) vs Nadal
  • 5). Australian Open 2012 (F) vs Nadal
  • 6). Wimbledon 2014 (F) vs Federer
  • 7). Wimbledon 2015 (F) vs Federer
  • 8). US Open 2015 (F) vs Federer
  • 9). Australian Open 2016 (SF) vs Federer
  • 10). Wimbledon 2018 (SF) vs Nadal
  • 11). Australian Open 2019 (F) vs Nadal
  • 12). Wimbledon 2019 (F) vs Federer
  • 13). Australian Open 2020 (SF) vs Federer
  • 14). French Open 2021 (SF) vs Nadal
To win slams, Nadal and Djokovic have had to beat one another + Federer the majority of the time.

65% of Federer's slams occurred without him having to play Nadal and/or Djokovic along the way, therefore paving the way for him to have an easier draw.
Click to expand...
Federer at his best and in his prime, early to mid 20s.

2004-2008
23 years old in 2004 and in 2008 he was 27.

That was the peak of his powers. He played Rafa then, Rafa was very very good very very early. Novak was one that wasn't "That good" early. Rather got better with time, after he figured out his breathing issues and so on.
 
Last edited:
Exclude the Odyssey.. Djokovic had a period of complete and utter dominance over Nads in GS finals appearances b/n the 2. Nads. No.

Winning streak

Djokovic v Nads

2011 Wimbledon, US.
2012 AUS.

Nads broke the streak of 3 at the Odyssey where he's got the Tony Manero down pat.. growing up there and all and that re.. may as well own the joint mate.. that's it mate.. forget about it mate.
 
Last edited:
PonsfordMagpie said:
Federer = 7 out of 20 slams = Defeated Nadal and/or Djokovic along the way to win the slam.
  • 1). Wimbledon 2006 (F) vs Nadal
  • 2). Australian Open 2007 (4R) vs Djokovic
  • 3). Wimbledon 2007 (F) vs Nadal
  • 4). US Open 2007 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 5). US Open 2008 (SF) vs Djokovic
  • 6). Wimbledon 2012 (SF) vs Djokovic
  • 7). Australian Open 2017 (F) vs Nadal
Nadal = 14 out of 21 slams = Defeated Federer and/or Djokovic along the way to win the slam.
  • 1). French Open 2005 (SF) vs Federer
  • 2). French Open 2006 (QF) vs Djokovic and (F) vs Federer
  • 3). French Open 2007 (SF) vs Djokovic and (F) vs Federer
  • 4). French Open 2008 (SF) vs Djokovic and (F) vs Federer
  • 5). Wimbledon 2008 (F) vs Federer
  • 6). Australian Open 2009 (F) vs Federer
  • 7). US Open 2010 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 8). French Open 2011 (F) vs Federer
  • 9). French Open 2012 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 10). French Open 2013 (SF) vs Djokovic
  • 11). US Open 2013 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 12). French Open 2014 (F) vs Djokovic
  • 13). French Open 2019 (SF) vs Federer
  • 14). French Open 2020 (F) vs Djokovic
Djokovic = 14 out of 20 slams = Defeated Nadal and/or Federer along the way to win the slam.
  • 1). Australian Open 2008 (SF) vs Federer
  • 2). Australian Open 2011 (SF) vs Federer
  • 3). Wimbledon 2011 (F) vs Nadal
  • 4). US Open 2011 (SF) vs Federer and (F) vs Nadal
  • 5). Australian Open 2012 (F) vs Nadal
  • 6). Wimbledon 2014 (F) vs Federer
  • 7). Wimbledon 2015 (F) vs Federer
  • 8). US Open 2015 (F) vs Federer
  • 9). Australian Open 2016 (SF) vs Federer
  • 10). Wimbledon 2018 (SF) vs Nadal
  • 11). Australian Open 2019 (F) vs Nadal
  • 12). Wimbledon 2019 (F) vs Federer
  • 13). Australian Open 2020 (SF) vs Federer
  • 14). French Open 2021 (SF) vs Nadal
To win slams, Nadal and Djokovic have had to beat one another + Federer the majority of the time.

65% of Federer's slams occurred without him having to play Nadal and/or Djokovic along the way, therefore paving the way for him to have an easier draw.
Click to expand...

Feds been quite the whipping boy for the two greats!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BobbyMorri
ATP/WTA Australian Summer of Tennis 2024
26 27 28 29 30
Replies
744
Views
13K
mattpolo8
mattpolo8
BobbyMorri
ATP/WTA Australian Summer of Tennis 2023
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
252
Views
10K
Bumpswithagrin
Bumpswithagrin
Crusey
News & Events Any Sydney Tennis Fans - Free tickets to United Cup 30/12
Replies
2
Views
1K
Crusey
Crusey
Drummond
ATP/WTA Masters 1000 Indian Wells
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
2K
Drummond
Drummond
Aristotle Pickett
'Blast from the past' thread.
Replies
12
Views
749
Hamingja
Hamingja
DNAngel
Finger fracture
Replies
0
Views
522
DNAngel
DNAngel
Drummond
ATP/WTA Masters 1000 Indian Wells
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
212
Views
5K
Drummond
Drummond

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top