Maybe against the current versions of them. But prime Fed, Nadal and Djokovic are a different ball game. Some of the shots/rallies they pulled off were insane - and that's what it took to beat the other guy.
His mental strength is definitely the greatest of the 3. Nadal used to be really strong in that regard but he's been pretty vulnerable in recent years.
Crazy numbers here as well for Novak. The best closer there is.
Yeah, in their peaks for sure, but even now, when I'm sure the likes of Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas and some of the other youngsters can match them physically. They still cannot consistently beat any of them. Federer is fecking 38 and still beats most of the top 15 without breaking a sweat.
Nadal's physical decline is very obvious but I think a major decline in mental strength has also happened. He himself keeps talking about the stress and nerves he's felt in recent years and you kind of see this nowadays. He's started to get a lot more tight when serving out sets and matches, he's gotten tighter on crucial points as well irrespective of how well he's played all match. He's still remarkably strong but there is an obvious decline in how clutch he is now.
For me it's basically saying that based on peak ability, whoever you pick should be able to beat any other candidate based on their peak ability. Or at least have the highest probability of doing so.
Rafa's distribution of grand slams is really bad. He can be the GOAT in clay, but the overall GOAT, hell no. He has what, 5 or 6 GS outside of clay, half of what Federer has outside of grass.
Nadal at Roland Garros anywhere close to his peak - annihilates any tennis player in history.
I largely agree but even one more Australian Open would be massive.
If we are looking at the technical and mental ability, Djokovic is definitely the best tennis player out of the big 3, which likely makes him the best tennis player of all time.
Aye, the different surfaces add a new complexity for us to make a call. Maybe we can say if there were 3 matches - 1 each on clay, grass and hard court, who would have the greatest probability of beating any opponent, both at their peaks, in that 3 match series?
Yeah agreed. I think he should be proud of his performance rather than distraught. Yes a little here and there it was his match and the greatest win of his career. But his level was absolutely superb for the most part. And like I said, he himself came back from the dead in that 5th set.
How do you measure peak ability? That is very subjective. When?
That's a rubbish opinion. While Nadal is not as aggressive as Fed and usually has a patient build up for a point, some of the winners he has hit are absolutely scintillating.
Don't like.
Such a shame that Murray has had such bad injuries. If instead of getting injured he continued to progress then he could have been a real force when it comes to grand slams.
Absolutely. Just imagine if he'd managed to win a couple if those 4/5 finals he'd lost.
This. In another era Murray ends ups with 8-10 slams and is revered as an all time great, at the level of someone like Agassi. Wonderful player.
.
This. Spot on. "Successful" is objective i.e. number of grand slams. But "greatest" is just an opinion.
Does he have the most slams ?
Like I said,
Even if he equals or overtakes Federer by the end of RG, he's still going to need a couple more hardcourt/grass Slams to be GOAT.
If he equals Federer there will be a good case for him given the head to heads.
I'd love to think so but I do think he needs just the 1-2 more non clay Slams to cement the spot. Otherwise the uneven distribution will continue to be held against him.
Why? Since when did winning on clay count for less?
Exactly. The debate also works in his favour as Nadal has won multiple slams on different surfaces. Federer and Djokovic haven’t won the French multiple times. Djokovic got schooled by Wawrinka in a final.
Unfortunately it's the perception and narrative that will always be held Rafa that he's won all his Slams on one surface. I believe H2H, Masters titles, weeks at #1 all play a big role and I've never been follower of the idea that just the number of Slams makes you GOAT. He's got a very good case right now but if he did win another AO (becoming the first ever to hold all 4 Slams twice) and maybe one more, it would be very very hard to make a case against him.
All 3 of them have the one Slam where they've won their maximum number of titles but it's always Rafa that it's held against because of just how good he has been there.
He's got absolutely rotten luck at the AO. Injuries, retirements, heartbreaking losses.
The pair of them had 101 points won at the net! Both of them just resorted to rushing to the net when they really needed to win big points.
