The Official Tennis Thread

[Angelo]

Federer made hay, 12 titles before Djokovic and Nadal arrived - 8 after. Since 2008 Nadal and Djokovic have won 16 slams each, Federer 8.

Perhaps there's a flip side to this, which is that Federer has done remarkably well to keep picking up slams into his late 30s against two all time greats who both have five years on him.

The age difference between Federer and the other two mean that it's impossible to make a fair comparison, as much as you'd like to try. In the end this debate is all about opinions, it can't won by stats.

Nadal already has more slams in his 30s than Federer. Djokovic has the same amount of slams in his 30s as Federer.

And neither have had to deal with a couple of all time greats with five years on them while they picked up these titles in their 30s.

There just isn't enough concurrence for a fair statistical comparison, no matter how much you try to force it.

You're right, he didn't. Those five years he had on them he was able to pick up 12 slams in against guys who fell off the radar as soon as Nadal and Djokovic started to come to the age of winning slams.

It's a contradictory argument.

You need to look at the statistics and the context around them, they don't make good reading for Federer. They don't make good reading for Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko or the rest of that era either.

Except that Fed raised the bar and changed  Tennis to such a degree during those times that his competitors just could not compete and their games were too embedded to adapt.
The next generation had the advantage of using him as an example to aspire too.

Its like all those solo dummies Frank McGuigan used to sell, you could say he wouldnt have done that to defenders in the early 90s as they were better but he raised the bar for forwards so backs raised theirs.

That's fine but the Federer ended up struggling badly against Nadal and Djokovic once they came on the scene

Nadal has actually won as many non-clay court slams as Federer had since that dominant spell he had between 03-07 and Djokovic has won more non-clay slams in that time. Djokovic has won 15 slams between hard and grass courts from 08-19, Nadal and Federer are on 8 each from 08-19 between grass and hard courts.

You can make the point that Federer raised the bar but Nadal and Djokovic bettered him.

I wouldn't be so sure Nadal and Djokovic will go on and dominate the slams next year and the year after. I think the end of them will come suddenly. Nadal knows it, he was as emotional as I've ever seen him after winning on Sunday, he knew it represented one of his last chances. He'll be hoping he'll add another couple of slams in the next two years but I don't see him getting much more than that.

It's going to be very tight at the top at the end of it. People think Djokovic is going to dominate the next few years, I wouldn't be sure of that at all. He's 32 now, he had a shoulder injury this year. He went 8 slams without a victory after he captured the French Open in 2016 and ended up needing surgery on a troublesome elbow. Medvedev has arrived, I expect Zverev, Tsistispas, FAA, Rublev, Shapovalov and those guys to now start getting their act together, Medvedev has shown them the way. The slams for the big 3 will get tougher and tougher from here on in.

[Angelo]

If Medvedev can sustain or build up this year's summer hard court form then he will win a hard court slam next year for sure.

I think Djokovic might now struggle to reach 20, the next gen will all be taking confidence from Medvedev and they will have the belief that they are as good or better than them. The problem for Djokovic is that they are all at their best on hard courts, guys like Zverev, Tsitsipas, Rublev, Khachanov, FAA and Shapovalov all have a game made for hard courts and that's Djokovic's bread and butter.

I think the changing of guard is now going to come a lot sooner than people think and I think we'll have a next gen slam champion for sure next season.

I think Nadal will just do enough (injury permitting) to oust Federer in slam titles and rightfully take his place as the GOAT. He still has no peers on clay and I think if he gets the next two years of play without injuries or setbacks he will pick up one or two RG. I think last night might be his last non-clay slam though.

 

Thats like saying Mick Lyons was a better footballer than Maurice Fitzgerald

There's no real question between Nadal and Federer. Nadal is miles ahead. The real debate is between Nadal and Djokovic.

Nadal has a superior head to head over Federer and Djokovic at slams.

Federer made hay when the competition was weak. He won 12 of his 20 slams between 2003-07. That was before Nadal and Djokovic established themselves, he was up against the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko and Safin for slams. All these guys were busted flushes in their mid 20s, they struggled to compete with the likes of Murray, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Cilic, Feeder etc nevermind Nadal and Djokovic and this was Federer's main competition then.

Look at the early finals Federer had - Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, a mid 30s Agassi, a teenage Nadal, Gonzalez.

It's a bit like when Gooch would rip it up in an All Ireland final against poor Cork and Mayo teams but struggle in the big tests.

Federer's record is padded by having a 5 year head start on Nadal and Djokovic. There's no way he would have got to 20 had he came through at the same time. The question for no 1 remains between Nadal and Djokovic but Federer is no 3.

Thats all fine and well but he's still a bull in a China shop

Clearly you don't watch him much.

A bull in a china shop would not dominate clay court tennis, you actually need to be able to craft and create shots rather than bludgeon the ball past your opponents and serve heavy like hard and grass courts require.

You clearly don't know finesse when you see it. Fed is obviously more technically gifted and naturally talented than either he just doesnt have the same physical attributes.

Finesse is aesthetic. He doesn't have the same physical attributes but neither does he have the same craft and problem solving ability that Nadal has.

Problem solving?? Didnt think Maths ability came into it but each to their own. When you are having a GOAT of all time debate it is entirely subjective.

Anyway Nadal has 12 Roland Garros and you could also say they are of lesser value as clay only takes up a portion of the season this gives more incentive and time for clay specialists to adapt to hard court and grass and the reverse for the hard/grass court specialists.
It also means the most talented players will always concentrate on the harder surfaces leading to overall less competitive clay competitions. So its safe to say Nadal has had a less competitive run at Roland Garros than Federer had in the early part of his career.
Also when Nadal was injured Fed and Djoikvic duly picked up their Roland Garros titles so its save to say they can play clay.

It could also be said that Fed in the early part of his career blew away the opposition by raising the bar to a different level, he brought shots that no one had ever seen before. Its safe to say he blew the competition out of the water and they couldnt adapt I would say because their games were too entrenched to adapt and prob too psychologically damaged fro the trimmings he gave them. The new crop coming behind them had a target and example to aim at (Fed) thus their playing style could be adapted as it was less embedded and they didn't have the mental baggage as being at the top and being knocked off their perch.
I dont buy for a minute that the competition was overly weak back then, fair enough there was no one else compared to Nadal and Djokivic, and while Roddick was limited he remained competitive for a long time, Hewitt was decent, and Safin certainly I would put alongside any of the 2nd tier of this era esp on hard courts, tho he did have a dubious temperament.

You can ream off all the stats you want but you can say any of them are skewed: Nadals advantage on clay, Fed to old, Nadal injured, Djokvic too young.....
At the end of the day I do like Feds style more, he has a very natural style always makes things look easy like anyone could do it, the single handed backhand at that level is a joy to behold. Nadal and Djokvic always look like they are playing at the limits of their skill level and their physical prowess is taking over.

Problem solving was what got Nadal the slam on Sunday evening, he was in bother but he found a way out with an opponent who was playing the tennis of his life.

The stats aren't skewed, it's remarkable what Nadal has done because of everything, the injuries, the fact clay only takes up 1/4 of the slams, the era he came into. People like to use Nadal's dominance on clay as a stick to beat him with but it's even more remarkable if anything. There's twice as many hard slams as clay every year, the same amount of grass slams and Nadal has ended up on 19 despite being dismissed as a one dimensional clay player. He's untouchable on clay and over the years he has altered his game to not only be competitive outside clay but successful on it. He has 7 non-clay slam titles now, 4 at the US Open which is more than Djokovic has and one less than Federer. Djokovic and Federer have 2 clay court slams between them and only Djokovic has beaten Nadal at RG, once.

Greatness is not about style over substance, as gallsman said, Federer's backhand looks great aesthetically but is arguably his weakness as it it is not reliable enough, when opponents go after it they get success. Federer's biggest weapon is his serving, nothing too much in the aesthetics there. Nadal gets unfairly cast type as some sort of athletic freak who wouldn't know what to do with a racket. Nadal has probably the greatest forehand in the game (I don't think it's as lethal as it was pre 2014 though), he has by far the best overhead smash in the game, his drop shots are definitely up there (being a clay courter) and he has worked tirelessly on his backhand and slice over the years to make it a weapon. If you look across their games, there's not too many shots of Federer you'd choose over Nadal, the serve is the only one with notable gap between them.

I think Nadal is probably the one who is furthest off his peak years at the minute now out of the big 3. The injuries have taken a toll on his body and he has had to change the way he plays his game. The game with Medvedev was the only game he played over 4 hours this year, his longest one up until last night had been 3 hrs 15 minutes against Kyrgios at Wimbledon. He made 3 finals and a SF this year, he has moved away what he did in his peak because his knees won't sustain it. Where Nadal has evolved and adapted Federer and Djokovic haven't really had to as the scales are already tipped in their favour with the slam calendar.

There is no slam of lesser value, you might have bought a little too much into an anglo-centric viewpoint that Wimbledon is the be all and end all. They're all worth the same.

If no slam is of lesser value then when are you trying to devalue Feds to make your point? Nadal just won a Grand slam without playing Fed or Djokivic surely according to your criteria youd have this as an undervalued one?

He wins the Roland Garros and is so dominant there because it is his preferred surface and the other top players dont like it and dont have the same time on clay to adjust their game to make themselves competitive. There is no question that it is less competitive that the other surfaces

Fed backhand a weakness . Opponents dont go after it.... they just dont want his forehand. By the way I would say the strongest part of his game is his footwork/balance. His biggest weakness is probably his speed around the court.

If Nadal is further off his peak years because of the strain on his body it is demonstration that he is using more physical effort to win.

Context, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are all courters. It's not as if Federer and Djokovic are like Pete Sampras, in that they are one dimensional players, unlike Sampras they have a lot more to their game than a big serve and only for the were around the same time as the greatest clay courter to ever play the game by a country mile they'd have 4 or 5 French Opens each. So every slam is worth the same US, Australian, French and Wimbledon.

The currency of the open in terms of competition is completely different. If you can't see that Federer's main rivals in that 03-07 era were powderpuff then you are an ostrich.

Roddick
Hewitt
Nalbandian
Safin
Davydenko

All washed up by their mid 20s.

Phillippoussis, Gonzalez, Bagdathis and an over the hill Agassi in slam finals at that time?

It's about context and there's no way you can say those slams are anywhere near as impressive as what Djokovic and Nadal accomplished in the subsequent years.

12 slams in 5 years (11 of those in a 4 year period) pre Nadal and Djokovic breakout against 8 in 12 years during the post breakout of Nadal and Djokovic. Unfortunately there are the kind of stats which the Fedheads try to run away from but they can't, all the smokescreens in the world won't diminish them which is why they usually have to lower the tone with completely unsubstantiated allegations against Nadal and Djokovic.

[omaghjoe]

If Medvedev can sustain or build up this year's summer hard court form then he will win a hard court slam next year for sure.

I think Djokovic might now struggle to reach 20, the next gen will all be taking confidence from Medvedev and they will have the belief that they are as good or better than them. The problem for Djokovic is that they are all at their best on hard courts, guys like Zverev, Tsitsipas, Rublev, Khachanov, FAA and Shapovalov all have a game made for hard courts and that's Djokovic's bread and butter.

I think the changing of guard is now going to come a lot sooner than people think and I think we'll have a next gen slam champion for sure next season.

I think Nadal will just do enough (injury permitting) to oust Federer in slam titles and rightfully take his place as the GOAT. He still has no peers on clay and I think if he gets the next two years of play without injuries or setbacks he will pick up one or two RG. I think last night might be his last non-clay slam though.

 

Thats like saying Mick Lyons was a better footballer than Maurice Fitzgerald

There's no real question between Nadal and Federer. Nadal is miles ahead. The real debate is between Nadal and Djokovic.

Nadal has a superior head to head over Federer and Djokovic at slams.

Federer made hay when the competition was weak. He won 12 of his 20 slams between 2003-07. That was before Nadal and Djokovic established themselves, he was up against the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko and Safin for slams. All these guys were busted flushes in their mid 20s, they struggled to compete with the likes of Murray, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Cilic, Feeder etc nevermind Nadal and Djokovic and this was Federer's main competition then.

Look at the early finals Federer had - Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, a mid 30s Agassi, a teenage Nadal, Gonzalez.

It's a bit like when Gooch would rip it up in an All Ireland final against poor Cork and Mayo teams but struggle in the big tests.

Federer's record is padded by having a 5 year head start on Nadal and Djokovic. There's no way he would have got to 20 had he came through at the same time. The question for no 1 remains between Nadal and Djokovic but Federer is no 3.

Thats all fine and well but he's still a bull in a China shop

Clearly you don't watch him much.

A bull in a china shop would not dominate clay court tennis, you actually need to be able to craft and create shots rather than bludgeon the ball past your opponents and serve heavy like hard and grass courts require.

You clearly don't know finesse when you see it. Fed is obviously more technically gifted and naturally talented than either he just doesnt have the same physical attributes.

Finesse is aesthetic. He doesn't have the same physical attributes but neither does he have the same craft and problem solving ability that Nadal has.

Problem solving?? Didnt think Maths ability came into it but each to their own. When you are having a GOAT of all time debate it is entirely subjective.

Anyway Nadal has 12 Roland Garros and you could also say they are of lesser value as clay only takes up a portion of the season this gives more incentive and time for clay specialists to adapt to hard court and grass and the reverse for the hard/grass court specialists.
It also means the most talented players will always concentrate on the harder surfaces leading to overall less competitive clay competitions. So its safe to say Nadal has had a less competitive run at Roland Garros than Federer had in the early part of his career.
Also when Nadal was injured Fed and Djoikvic duly picked up their Roland Garros titles so its save to say they can play clay.

It could also be said that Fed in the early part of his career blew away the opposition by raising the bar to a different level, he brought shots that no one had ever seen before. Its safe to say he blew the competition out of the water and they couldnt adapt I would say because their games were too entrenched to adapt and prob too psychologically damaged fro the trimmings he gave them. The new crop coming behind them had a target and example to aim at (Fed) thus their playing style could be adapted as it was less embedded and they didn't have the mental baggage as being at the top and being knocked off their perch.
I dont buy for a minute that the competition was overly weak back then, fair enough there was no one else compared to Nadal and Djokivic, and while Roddick was limited he remained competitive for a long time, Hewitt was decent, and Safin certainly I would put alongside any of the 2nd tier of this era esp on hard courts, tho he did have a dubious temperament.

You can ream off all the stats you want but you can say any of them are skewed: Nadals advantage on clay, Fed to old, Nadal injured, Djokvic too young.....
At the end of the day I do like Feds style more, he has a very natural style always makes things look easy like anyone could do it, the single handed backhand at that level is a joy to behold. Nadal and Djokvic always look like they are playing at the limits of their skill level and their physical prowess is taking over.

Problem solving was what got Nadal the slam on Sunday evening, he was in bother but he found a way out with an opponent who was playing the tennis of his life.

The stats aren't skewed, it's remarkable what Nadal has done because of everything, the injuries, the fact clay only takes up 1/4 of the slams, the era he came into. People like to use Nadal's dominance on clay as a stick to beat him with but it's even more remarkable if anything. There's twice as many hard slams as clay every year, the same amount of grass slams and Nadal has ended up on 19 despite being dismissed as a one dimensional clay player. He's untouchable on clay and over the years he has altered his game to not only be competitive outside clay but successful on it. He has 7 non-clay slam titles now, 4 at the US Open which is more than Djokovic has and one less than Federer. Djokovic and Federer have 2 clay court slams between them and only Djokovic has beaten Nadal at RG, once.

Greatness is not about style over substance, as gallsman said, Federer's backhand looks great aesthetically but is arguably his weakness as it it is not reliable enough, when opponents go after it they get success. Federer's biggest weapon is his serving, nothing too much in the aesthetics there. Nadal gets unfairly cast type as some sort of athletic freak who wouldn't know what to do with a racket. Nadal has probably the greatest forehand in the game (I don't think it's as lethal as it was pre 2014 though), he has by far the best overhead smash in the game, his drop shots are definitely up there (being a clay courter) and he has worked tirelessly on his backhand and slice over the years to make it a weapon. If you look across their games, there's not too many shots of Federer you'd choose over Nadal, the serve is the only one with notable gap between them.

I think Nadal is probably the one who is furthest off his peak years at the minute now out of the big 3. The injuries have taken a toll on his body and he has had to change the way he plays his game. The game with Medvedev was the only game he played over 4 hours this year, his longest one up until last night had been 3 hrs 15 minutes against Kyrgios at Wimbledon. He made 3 finals and a SF this year, he has moved away what he did in his peak because his knees won't sustain it. Where Nadal has evolved and adapted Federer and Djokovic haven't really had to as the scales are already tipped in their favour with the slam calendar.

There is no slam of lesser value, you might have bought a little too much into an anglo-centric viewpoint that Wimbledon is the be all and end all. They're all worth the same.

If no slam is of lesser value then when are you trying to devalue Feds to make your point? Nadal just won a Grand slam without playing Fed or Djokivic surely according to your criteria youd have this as an undervalued one?

He wins the Roland Garros and is so dominant there because it is his preferred surface and the other top players dont like it and dont have the same time on clay to adjust their game to make themselves competitive. There is no question that it is less competitive that the other surfaces

Fed backhand a weakness . Opponents dont go after it.... they just dont want his forehand. By the way I would say the strongest part of his game is his footwork/balance. His biggest weakness is probably his speed around the court.

If Nadal is further off his peak years because of the strain on his body it is demonstration that he is using more physical effort to win.

Context, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are all courters. It's not as if Federer and Djokovic are like Pete Sampras, in that they are one dimensional players, unlike Sampras they have a lot more to their game than a big serve and only for the were around the same time as the greatest clay courter to ever play the game by a country mile they'd have 4 or 5 French Opens each. So every slam is worth the same US, Australian, French and Wimbledon.

The currency of the open in terms of competition is completely different. If you can't see that Federer's main rivals in that 03-07 era were powderpuff then you are an ostrich.

Roddick
Hewitt
Nalbandian
Safin
Davydenko

All washed up by their mid 20s.

Phillippoussis, Gonzalez, Bagdathis and an over the hill Agassi in slam finals at that time?

It's about context and there's no way you can say those slams are anywhere near as impressive as what Djokovic and Nadal accomplished in the subsequent years.

12 slams in 5 years (11 of those in a 4 year period) pre Nadal and Djokovic breakout against 8 in 12 years during the post breakout of Nadal and Djokovic. Unfortunately there are the kind of stats which the Fedheads try to run away from but they can't, all the smokescreens in the world won't diminish them which is why they usually have to lower the tone with completely unsubstantiated allegations against Nadal and Djokovic.

Speaking of Ostrichs Fed rose the bar to a new level in those years, the current crop had the opportunity to rise to meet it, his peers not so much. Nadal and Djokovic are exceptions obviously but your not gonna tell me that outside of the top 3 the top players were ALL just naturally better than the crop from 5 years previously. There was a reason they performed better and that reason was Fed had raised the bar and the next crop had more of an opportunity to hit that his peers did.

Grass and Hard court players have always struggled on clay sure Fed often flopped there in his early years. Clay courters have more of an opportunity and incentive to adapt their game. Whats more the nature of the methodical nature of the clay game means its very difficult for a lesser opponent to get one over a better player.  You only have to look at the results to say that Nadal has had nothing but an easy time there, and how many does he have then? 12 and counting is it?

Anyway are certain Slams worth more than others or not? Your saying they are and they arent, you cant have it both ways

Your own criteria for GOAT is letting your argument down Im afraid. Its Fairly irrelevant to my own opinion for GOAT but Ive a feeling that is the same for you to, you prob just like Nadal's big muscles and funky head bands thats ok Im cool with that.

[Angelo]

If Medvedev can sustain or build up this year's summer hard court form then he will win a hard court slam next year for sure.

I think Djokovic might now struggle to reach 20, the next gen will all be taking confidence from Medvedev and they will have the belief that they are as good or better than them. The problem for Djokovic is that they are all at their best on hard courts, guys like Zverev, Tsitsipas, Rublev, Khachanov, FAA and Shapovalov all have a game made for hard courts and that's Djokovic's bread and butter.

I think the changing of guard is now going to come a lot sooner than people think and I think we'll have a next gen slam champion for sure next season.

I think Nadal will just do enough (injury permitting) to oust Federer in slam titles and rightfully take his place as the GOAT. He still has no peers on clay and I think if he gets the next two years of play without injuries or setbacks he will pick up one or two RG. I think last night might be his last non-clay slam though.

 

Thats like saying Mick Lyons was a better footballer than Maurice Fitzgerald

There's no real question between Nadal and Federer. Nadal is miles ahead. The real debate is between Nadal and Djokovic.

Nadal has a superior head to head over Federer and Djokovic at slams.

Federer made hay when the competition was weak. He won 12 of his 20 slams between 2003-07. That was before Nadal and Djokovic established themselves, he was up against the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko and Safin for slams. All these guys were busted flushes in their mid 20s, they struggled to compete with the likes of Murray, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Cilic, Feeder etc nevermind Nadal and Djokovic and this was Federer's main competition then.

Look at the early finals Federer had - Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, a mid 30s Agassi, a teenage Nadal, Gonzalez.

It's a bit like when Gooch would rip it up in an All Ireland final against poor Cork and Mayo teams but struggle in the big tests.

Federer's record is padded by having a 5 year head start on Nadal and Djokovic. There's no way he would have got to 20 had he came through at the same time. The question for no 1 remains between Nadal and Djokovic but Federer is no 3.

Thats all fine and well but he's still a bull in a China shop

Clearly you don't watch him much.

A bull in a china shop would not dominate clay court tennis, you actually need to be able to craft and create shots rather than bludgeon the ball past your opponents and serve heavy like hard and grass courts require.

You clearly don't know finesse when you see it. Fed is obviously more technically gifted and naturally talented than either he just doesnt have the same physical attributes.

Finesse is aesthetic. He doesn't have the same physical attributes but neither does he have the same craft and problem solving ability that Nadal has.

Problem solving?? Didnt think Maths ability came into it but each to their own. When you are having a GOAT of all time debate it is entirely subjective.

Anyway Nadal has 12 Roland Garros and you could also say they are of lesser value as clay only takes up a portion of the season this gives more incentive and time for clay specialists to adapt to hard court and grass and the reverse for the hard/grass court specialists.
It also means the most talented players will always concentrate on the harder surfaces leading to overall less competitive clay competitions. So its safe to say Nadal has had a less competitive run at Roland Garros than Federer had in the early part of his career.
Also when Nadal was injured Fed and Djoikvic duly picked up their Roland Garros titles so its save to say they can play clay.

It could also be said that Fed in the early part of his career blew away the opposition by raising the bar to a different level, he brought shots that no one had ever seen before. Its safe to say he blew the competition out of the water and they couldnt adapt I would say because their games were too entrenched to adapt and prob too psychologically damaged fro the trimmings he gave them. The new crop coming behind them had a target and example to aim at (Fed) thus their playing style could be adapted as it was less embedded and they didn't have the mental baggage as being at the top and being knocked off their perch.
I dont buy for a minute that the competition was overly weak back then, fair enough there was no one else compared to Nadal and Djokivic, and while Roddick was limited he remained competitive for a long time, Hewitt was decent, and Safin certainly I would put alongside any of the 2nd tier of this era esp on hard courts, tho he did have a dubious temperament.

You can ream off all the stats you want but you can say any of them are skewed: Nadals advantage on clay, Fed to old, Nadal injured, Djokvic too young.....
At the end of the day I do like Feds style more, he has a very natural style always makes things look easy like anyone could do it, the single handed backhand at that level is a joy to behold. Nadal and Djokvic always look like they are playing at the limits of their skill level and their physical prowess is taking over.

Problem solving was what got Nadal the slam on Sunday evening, he was in bother but he found a way out with an opponent who was playing the tennis of his life.

The stats aren't skewed, it's remarkable what Nadal has done because of everything, the injuries, the fact clay only takes up 1/4 of the slams, the era he came into. People like to use Nadal's dominance on clay as a stick to beat him with but it's even more remarkable if anything. There's twice as many hard slams as clay every year, the same amount of grass slams and Nadal has ended up on 19 despite being dismissed as a one dimensional clay player. He's untouchable on clay and over the years he has altered his game to not only be competitive outside clay but successful on it. He has 7 non-clay slam titles now, 4 at the US Open which is more than Djokovic has and one less than Federer. Djokovic and Federer have 2 clay court slams between them and only Djokovic has beaten Nadal at RG, once.

Greatness is not about style over substance, as gallsman said, Federer's backhand looks great aesthetically but is arguably his weakness as it it is not reliable enough, when opponents go after it they get success. Federer's biggest weapon is his serving, nothing too much in the aesthetics there. Nadal gets unfairly cast type as some sort of athletic freak who wouldn't know what to do with a racket. Nadal has probably the greatest forehand in the game (I don't think it's as lethal as it was pre 2014 though), he has by far the best overhead smash in the game, his drop shots are definitely up there (being a clay courter) and he has worked tirelessly on his backhand and slice over the years to make it a weapon. If you look across their games, there's not too many shots of Federer you'd choose over Nadal, the serve is the only one with notable gap between them.

I think Nadal is probably the one who is furthest off his peak years at the minute now out of the big 3. The injuries have taken a toll on his body and he has had to change the way he plays his game. The game with Medvedev was the only game he played over 4 hours this year, his longest one up until last night had been 3 hrs 15 minutes against Kyrgios at Wimbledon. He made 3 finals and a SF this year, he has moved away what he did in his peak because his knees won't sustain it. Where Nadal has evolved and adapted Federer and Djokovic haven't really had to as the scales are already tipped in their favour with the slam calendar.

There is no slam of lesser value, you might have bought a little too much into an anglo-centric viewpoint that Wimbledon is the be all and end all. They're all worth the same.

If no slam is of lesser value then when are you trying to devalue Feds to make your point? Nadal just won a Grand slam without playing Fed or Djokivic surely according to your criteria youd have this as an undervalued one?

He wins the Roland Garros and is so dominant there because it is his preferred surface and the other top players dont like it and dont have the same time on clay to adjust their game to make themselves competitive. There is no question that it is less competitive that the other surfaces

Fed backhand a weakness . Opponents dont go after it.... they just dont want his forehand. By the way I would say the strongest part of his game is his footwork/balance. His biggest weakness is probably his speed around the court.

If Nadal is further off his peak years because of the strain on his body it is demonstration that he is using more physical effort to win.

Context, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are all courters. It's not as if Federer and Djokovic are like Pete Sampras, in that they are one dimensional players, unlike Sampras they have a lot more to their game than a big serve and only for the were around the same time as the greatest clay courter to ever play the game by a country mile they'd have 4 or 5 French Opens each. So every slam is worth the same US, Australian, French and Wimbledon.

The currency of the open in terms of competition is completely different. If you can't see that Federer's main rivals in that 03-07 era were powderpuff then you are an ostrich.

Roddick
Hewitt
Nalbandian
Safin
Davydenko

All washed up by their mid 20s.

Phillippoussis, Gonzalez, Bagdathis and an over the hill Agassi in slam finals at that time?

It's about context and there's no way you can say those slams are anywhere near as impressive as what Djokovic and Nadal accomplished in the subsequent years.

12 slams in 5 years (11 of those in a 4 year period) pre Nadal and Djokovic breakout against 8 in 12 years during the post breakout of Nadal and Djokovic. Unfortunately there are the kind of stats which the Fedheads try to run away from but they can't, all the smokescreens in the world won't diminish them which is why they usually have to lower the tone with completely unsubstantiated allegations against Nadal and Djokovic.

Speaking of Ostrichs Fed rose the bar to a new level in those years, the current crop had the opportunity to rise to meet it, his peers not so much. Nadal and Djokovic are exceptions obviously but your not gonna tell me that outside of the top 3 the top players were ALL just naturally better than the crop from 5 years previously. There was a reason they performed better and that reason was Fed had raised the bar and the next crop had more of an opportunity to hit that his peers did.

Grass and Hard court players have always struggled on clay sure Fed often flopped there in his early years. Clay courters have more of an opportunity and incentive to adapt their game. Whats more the nature of the methodical nature of the clay game means its very difficult for a lesser opponent to get one over a better player.  You only have to look at the results to say that Nadal has had nothing but an easy time there, and how many does he have then? 12 and counting is it?

Anyway are certain Slams worth more than others or not? Your saying they are and they arent, you cant have it both ways

Your own criteria for GOAT is letting your argument down Im afraid. Its Fairly irrelevant to my own opinion for GOAT but Ive a feeling that is the same for you to, you prob just like Nadal's big muscles and funky head bands thats ok Im cool with that.

You can only rise to the upper limit of your capabilities. Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Davydenko were all decent players but quite limited. The generation that came after them were far superior. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all raised the level themselves but I don't think the current generation are in their league and I think Federer is a notch below Nadal and Djokovic.

It's a weak argument you're putting forward for Federer and it's one that does not hold up when you put it under the lens. Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko and Nalbandian all fell off a cliff in their mid 20s after being top 4 players during Federer's golden patch (03-07). There's no dodging that at all. All these guys fell of a cliff in what should have been their prime years when a new era emerged, what does that say for the abilities of those guys? What does it say for the currency of grand slams 03-07.

I'm saying context matters a lot and you're sticking your fingers in your ears when it comes to looking at the context of Federer's slams in the 03-07 era, that dominance never continued when Nadal and Djokovic truly emerged. You should be analysing why that was but maybe the answer makes uncomfortable reading.

It's all laid out for you there but it looks like you are intent on choosing the ignorant path.

[omaghjoe]

If Medvedev can sustain or build up this year's summer hard court form then he will win a hard court slam next year for sure.

I think Djokovic might now struggle to reach 20, the next gen will all be taking confidence from Medvedev and they will have the belief that they are as good or better than them. The problem for Djokovic is that they are all at their best on hard courts, guys like Zverev, Tsitsipas, Rublev, Khachanov, FAA and Shapovalov all have a game made for hard courts and that's Djokovic's bread and butter.

I think the changing of guard is now going to come a lot sooner than people think and I think we'll have a next gen slam champion for sure next season.

I think Nadal will just do enough (injury permitting) to oust Federer in slam titles and rightfully take his place as the GOAT. He still has no peers on clay and I think if he gets the next two years of play without injuries or setbacks he will pick up one or two RG. I think last night might be his last non-clay slam though.

 

Thats like saying Mick Lyons was a better footballer than Maurice Fitzgerald

There's no real question between Nadal and Federer. Nadal is miles ahead. The real debate is between Nadal and Djokovic.

Nadal has a superior head to head over Federer and Djokovic at slams.

Federer made hay when the competition was weak. He won 12 of his 20 slams between 2003-07. That was before Nadal and Djokovic established themselves, he was up against the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko and Safin for slams. All these guys were busted flushes in their mid 20s, they struggled to compete with the likes of Murray, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro, Cilic, Feeder etc nevermind Nadal and Djokovic and this was Federer's main competition then.

Look at the early finals Federer had - Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, a mid 30s Agassi, a teenage Nadal, Gonzalez.

It's a bit like when Gooch would rip it up in an All Ireland final against poor Cork and Mayo teams but struggle in the big tests.

Federer's record is padded by having a 5 year head start on Nadal and Djokovic. There's no way he would have got to 20 had he came through at the same time. The question for no 1 remains between Nadal and Djokovic but Federer is no 3.

Thats all fine and well but he's still a bull in a China shop

Clearly you don't watch him much.

A bull in a china shop would not dominate clay court tennis, you actually need to be able to craft and create shots rather than bludgeon the ball past your opponents and serve heavy like hard and grass courts require.

You clearly don't know finesse when you see it. Fed is obviously more technically gifted and naturally talented than either he just doesnt have the same physical attributes.

Finesse is aesthetic. He doesn't have the same physical attributes but neither does he have the same craft and problem solving ability that Nadal has.

Problem solving?? Didnt think Maths ability came into it but each to their own. When you are having a GOAT of all time debate it is entirely subjective.

Anyway Nadal has 12 Roland Garros and you could also say they are of lesser value as clay only takes up a portion of the season this gives more incentive and time for clay specialists to adapt to hard court and grass and the reverse for the hard/grass court specialists.
It also means the most talented players will always concentrate on the harder surfaces leading to overall less competitive clay competitions. So its safe to say Nadal has had a less competitive run at Roland Garros than Federer had in the early part of his career.
Also when Nadal was injured Fed and Djoikvic duly picked up their Roland Garros titles so its save to say they can play clay.

It could also be said that Fed in the early part of his career blew away the opposition by raising the bar to a different level, he brought shots that no one had ever seen before. Its safe to say he blew the competition out of the water and they couldnt adapt I would say because their games were too entrenched to adapt and prob too psychologically damaged fro the trimmings he gave them. The new crop coming behind them had a target and example to aim at (Fed) thus their playing style could be adapted as it was less embedded and they didn't have the mental baggage as being at the top and being knocked off their perch.
I dont buy for a minute that the competition was overly weak back then, fair enough there was no one else compared to Nadal and Djokivic, and while Roddick was limited he remained competitive for a long time, Hewitt was decent, and Safin certainly I would put alongside any of the 2nd tier of this era esp on hard courts, tho he did have a dubious temperament.

You can ream off all the stats you want but you can say any of them are skewed: Nadals advantage on clay, Fed to old, Nadal injured, Djokvic too young.....
At the end of the day I do like Feds style more, he has a very natural style always makes things look easy like anyone could do it, the single handed backhand at that level is a joy to behold. Nadal and Djokvic always look like they are playing at the limits of their skill level and their physical prowess is taking over.

Problem solving was what got Nadal the slam on Sunday evening, he was in bother but he found a way out with an opponent who was playing the tennis of his life.

The stats aren't skewed, it's remarkable what Nadal has done because of everything, the injuries, the fact clay only takes up 1/4 of the slams, the era he came into. People like to use Nadal's dominance on clay as a stick to beat him with but it's even more remarkable if anything. There's twice as many hard slams as clay every year, the same amount of grass slams and Nadal has ended up on 19 despite being dismissed as a one dimensional clay player. He's untouchable on clay and over the years he has altered his game to not only be competitive outside clay but successful on it. He has 7 non-clay slam titles now, 4 at the US Open which is more than Djokovic has and one less than Federer. Djokovic and Federer have 2 clay court slams between them and only Djokovic has beaten Nadal at RG, once.

Greatness is not about style over substance, as gallsman said, Federer's backhand looks great aesthetically but is arguably his weakness as it it is not reliable enough, when opponents go after it they get success. Federer's biggest weapon is his serving, nothing too much in the aesthetics there. Nadal gets unfairly cast type as some sort of athletic freak who wouldn't know what to do with a racket. Nadal has probably the greatest forehand in the game (I don't think it's as lethal as it was pre 2014 though), he has by far the best overhead smash in the game, his drop shots are definitely up there (being a clay courter) and he has worked tirelessly on his backhand and slice over the years to make it a weapon. If you look across their games, there's not too many shots of Federer you'd choose over Nadal, the serve is the only one with notable gap between them.

I think Nadal is probably the one who is furthest off his peak years at the minute now out of the big 3. The injuries have taken a toll on his body and he has had to change the way he plays his game. The game with Medvedev was the only game he played over 4 hours this year, his longest one up until last night had been 3 hrs 15 minutes against Kyrgios at Wimbledon. He made 3 finals and a SF this year, he has moved away what he did in his peak because his knees won't sustain it. Where Nadal has evolved and adapted Federer and Djokovic haven't really had to as the scales are already tipped in their favour with the slam calendar.

There is no slam of lesser value, you might have bought a little too much into an anglo-centric viewpoint that Wimbledon is the be all and end all. They're all worth the same.

If no slam is of lesser value then when are you trying to devalue Feds to make your point? Nadal just won a Grand slam without playing Fed or Djokivic surely according to your criteria youd have this as an undervalued one?

He wins the Roland Garros and is so dominant there because it is his preferred surface and the other top players dont like it and dont have the same time on clay to adjust their game to make themselves competitive. There is no question that it is less competitive that the other surfaces

Fed backhand a weakness . Opponents dont go after it.... they just dont want his forehand. By the way I would say the strongest part of his game is his footwork/balance. His biggest weakness is probably his speed around the court.

If Nadal is further off his peak years because of the strain on his body it is demonstration that he is using more physical effort to win.

Context, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are all courters. It's not as if Federer and Djokovic are like Pete Sampras, in that they are one dimensional players, unlike Sampras they have a lot more to their game than a big serve and only for the were around the same time as the greatest clay courter to ever play the game by a country mile they'd have 4 or 5 French Opens each. So every slam is worth the same US, Australian, French and Wimbledon.

The currency of the open in terms of competition is completely different. If you can't see that Federer's main rivals in that 03-07 era were powderpuff then you are an ostrich.

Roddick
Hewitt
Nalbandian
Safin
Davydenko

All washed up by their mid 20s.

Phillippoussis, Gonzalez, Bagdathis and an over the hill Agassi in slam finals at that time?

It's about context and there's no way you can say those slams are anywhere near as impressive as what Djokovic and Nadal accomplished in the subsequent years.

12 slams in 5 years (11 of those in a 4 year period) pre Nadal and Djokovic breakout against 8 in 12 years during the post breakout of Nadal and Djokovic. Unfortunately there are the kind of stats which the Fedheads try to run away from but they can't, all the smokescreens in the world won't diminish them which is why they usually have to lower the tone with completely unsubstantiated allegations against Nadal and Djokovic.

Speaking of Ostrichs Fed rose the bar to a new level in those years, the current crop had the opportunity to rise to meet it, his peers not so much. Nadal and Djokovic are exceptions obviously but your not gonna tell me that outside of the top 3 the top players were ALL just naturally better than the crop from 5 years previously. There was a reason they performed better and that reason was Fed had raised the bar and the next crop had more of an opportunity to hit that his peers did.

Grass and Hard court players have always struggled on clay sure Fed often flopped there in his early years. Clay courters have more of an opportunity and incentive to adapt their game. Whats more the nature of the methodical nature of the clay game means its very difficult for a lesser opponent to get one over a better player.  You only have to look at the results to say that Nadal has had nothing but an easy time there, and how many does he have then? 12 and counting is it?

Anyway are certain Slams worth more than others or not? Your saying they are and they arent, you cant have it both ways

Your own criteria for GOAT is letting your argument down Im afraid. Its Fairly irrelevant to my own opinion for GOAT but Ive a feeling that is the same for you to, you prob just like Nadal's big muscles and funky head bands thats ok Im cool with that.

You can only rise to the upper limit of your capabilities. Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Davydenko were all decent players but quite limited. The generation that came after them were far superior. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all raised the level themselves but I don't think the current generation are in their league and I think Federer is a notch below Nadal and Djokovic.

It's a weak argument you're putting forward for Federer and it's one that does not hold up when you put it under the lens. Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko and Nalbandian all fell off a cliff in their mid 20s after being top 4 players during Federer's golden patch (03-07). There's no dodging that at all. All these guys fell of a cliff in what should have been their prime years when a new era emerged, what does that say for the abilities of those guys? What does it say for the currency of grand slams 03-07.

I'm saying context matters a lot and you're sticking your fingers in your ears when it comes to looking at the context of Federer's slams in the 03-07 era, that dominance never continued when Nadal and Djokovic truly emerged. You should be analysing why that was but maybe the answer makes uncomfortable reading.

It's all laid out for you there but it looks like you are intent on choosing the ignorant path.

The upper limit of their abilities eh  and how do define what this? Obviously nothing do with the training they received at critical periods in their development for the professional game.... rather it is just inherent... that a tough sell

Im only pointing out the flaws in your criteria and argument for Nadal which you are happy enuff to ignore thats ok Im cool with that. Its got nothing to do with why I think Fed is the GOAT so Im not really ignoring anything.

[Milltown Row2]

Fed is the current best tennis player based on grand slams. Nadal could be very soon, but until then..

[Angelo]

Another Masters 1000 for Medvedev, he has now made the final of the last 6 tournaments he has played, including 3 Masters 1000s and the US Open.

I'd have him as favourite for the year end title and Australian Open, his hard court form has been outrageous and nobody really seems to have his measure.

He is going to stop Djokovic from reaching 20 I think.

[gallsman]

Nobody has his measure? He played Nadal twice in that span and lost twice, one of them a trouncing.

[Angelo]

Nobody has his measure? He played Nadal twice in that span and lost twice, one of them a trouncing.

He's getting better and better since, he's won 18 straight sets since the meeting with Nadal which he was very unlucky to lose. Nadal had to dig that out from the impossible.

Watching him play it's clear his opponents really don't know how to deal with him, he seems like a magnet to the ball.

[Angelo]

Fancy Thiem to take Djokovic tomorrow.

Thiem has had the measure of him recently winning 4 of their last 5 meetings, 4 of those meetings were on clay but Thiem won their last meeting which was on hard court at the ATP finals in November. He has the durability and the legs to stick in there with Djokovic but he also has the offensive weapons, if there's one thing that gets at Djokovic its when his opponent takes on the ball early, flattens out their strike and hits it at pace. It's why Wawrinka has caused him so many problems in the past.

Djokovic's record in Australia is phenomenal, this is his 8th final, he's won the previous 7 but I think if there's one player in the game today that really unnerves him then that is Dominic Thiem.

Thiem has had two 4 hr + battles in his last two games and Djokovic also has had an extra days rest but I don't think Thiem will be lacking in reserves.

The first set is absolutely crucial in this tie. If Djokovic gets ahead he can be very hard to peg back.

Should be a cracker.

[nrico2006]

Djokovic to win, didn't think he could get any better but he his serve gas gotten stronger lately, maybe Ivanisevic is earning his crust.

[Angelo]

One set each.

It's not really kicked off yet, both players playing in fits and starts.

Strangely muted atmosphere, doesn't seem to have the same buzz without Federer or Nadal being involved.

[Angelo]

Thiem takes the third set 6-2.

Djokovic had an implosion at the start of the third set on his serve and Thiem punished him.

Djokovic looks well out of sorts and Thiem isn't playing anywhere near the heights he did against Nadal or Zverev.

[Angelo]

Deciding set coming up.

Poor final though, scrappy, error ridden, flat.

[Saffrongael]

Deciding set coming up.

Poor final though, scrappy, error ridden, flat.

Djokovics gluten free diet should really come into play here in these long matches