Tennis 2022

[Canagel]

numbers and greatness don't go hand in hand.

You can statistically be the best and break records but someone with less numbers can still be greater than you.

For example in F1 Schumacher and Hamilton are the two GOATs statistically (7 titles, most wins etc) but I know a lot of people that still think Senna is the greatest even though he won only 3 titles. There are boxers with better records than Ali but he is still the greatest.
I won't argue if you believe Djokovic or Nadal are the best based off their numbers achieved , (infact I prefer watching Nadal out of the three right now) but people are entitled to believe Federer is greater imo. He dominated the sport in his own way and was the undisputed best player for 5 or 6 years straight.

 

[Rajma]

There’s very little that separates them besides the fact that Fed is obviously less of a grinder and easier on the eye, however, he massively benefited from his incredible service game allowing to play him with more freedom and you wouldn’t bet on him if your life would depend on one tennis match, that would be Novak/Rafa for sure.

 

[Red the Bear]

numbers and greatness don't go hand in hand.

You can statistically be the best and break records but someone with less numbers can still be greater than you.

For example in F1 Schumacher and Hamilton are the two GOATs statistically (7 titles, most wins etc) but I know a lot of people that still think Senna is the greatest even though he won only 3 titles. There are boxers with better records than Ali but he is still the greatest.
I won't argue if you believe Djokovic or Nadal are the best based off their numbers achieved , (infact I prefer watching Nadal out of the three right now) but people are entitled to believe Federer is greater imo. He dominated the sport in his own way and was the undisputed best player for 5 or 6 years straight.

Not really, in certain regards it definitely goes hand in hand.
Also you're comparison with ali is misguided considering that he had the best assortment of opponents in history which is made even more impressive by the gap in his career.
It's same in football and I assume many other sports.

Numbers do mean a lot.

 

[ExoduS]

Yea, yea, weak era bs. Had Zverev and Medvedev won few slams by beating Djokovic and Nadal while Djokovic and Nadal are not producing their best, some would say this is the "stronger" era. Someone dominating an era does not mean era is weak, it means those that dominate are that freaking good.

Over the last 15 years Nadal, Djokovic and Federer had to train to beat each other and also be able to beat everyone else in order to be able to lift the trophy. When Novak finally was able to get through Nadal and Federer, Murray and Wawrinka emerged. Murray and Wawrinka stopped Novak from winning 5 slams! Wawrinka beat Novak in all 3 slams he won, and Murray beat Novak in two out 3 finals that Murray won.

If there was ever a weak era in tennis, it was 2004-2007. Federer gained legendary status by beating Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Safin, Ljubicic or whatever "legends" existed in that time. However that argument can easily be turned around as the start of my post: Have Roddick, Safin and Hewitt being able to beat Federer more at slams, all of a sudden the 2004-2007 is filled with legends of the game. For that to have happened, even if Federer played a bit worse the era would have considered "strong".

Great players make eras weak as others seem clueless to beat them. When Novak was losing to Murray and Wawrinka, no one was calling that time a "weak" era, but now when he is beating Medvedevs/Zverevs/Beretinis etc... Era is weak?
Btw, it took legendary tennis from Wawrinka to take out Djokovic 2 out of 3 times. Only straight forward win where Djokovic was playing bad was USO 2016. Two other wins required out of this World performance by Wawrinka. Kinda performance that gained him nickname Stanimal. Murray's 2013 Wimbledon was also high quality performance.

Anyhow - 2022 for various reasons is a bad year for tennis. Novak's vaccine bs, Nadal's injuries, Russian/Ukrainian war have made this year bad. Not bad players, but unfortunate circumstances.

 

[Andrade]

There’s very little that separates them besides the fact that Fed is obviously less of a grinder and easier on the eye, however, he massively benefited from his incredible service game allowing to play him with more freedom and you wouldn’t bet on him if your life would depend on one tennis match, that would be Novak/Rafa for sure.

I would if it was on grass and he was in his prime.

 

[MattofManchester]

Someone dominating an era does not mean era is weak, it means those that dominate are that freaking good.

It is a weak era, because the players you mentioned have the ability, but their mentality is so pisspoor they get destroyed at GS events. They lack the hunger and drive to match Nadal and Djokovic who are far from their peak powers.

Wawrinka, Del Potro, Murray, Ferrer and co had to deal with them in their primes, when they were unstoppable.

Zverev, Berrettini, Medvedev and Tsitsipas have them at their worst and still can't do anything. There's something very pathetic about it.

The likes of Roddick and Hewitt would wipe the floor with this lot.

 

[Andrade]

It is a weak era, because the players you mentioned have the ability, but their mentality is so pisspoor they get destroyed at GS events. They lack the hunger and drive to match Nadal and Djokovic who are far from their peak powers.

Wawrinka, Del Potro, Murray, Ferrer and co had to deal with them in their primes, when they were unstoppable.

Zverev, Berrettini, Medvedev and Tsitsipas have them at their worst and still can't do anything. There's something very pathetic about it.

The likes of Roddick and Hewitt would wipe the floor with this lot.

Agree 100%

 

[Bole Top]

I disagree. random top 10-15 player should not be expected to wipe the floors with goats on weekly basis just because he's younger. Medvedev already destroyed Djoko in GS final, unthinkable for Roddick and Hewitt. Zverev also has great record against him, already winning in 3 major finals against him. that's good enough for me.

one thing is certain, neither of them would get double bageled vs Nadal/Djoko like Hewitt used to in his GS finals vs Fed. he lost 16 of 18 matches vs Fed since 2004 and Roddick 18 of 20, yet they're being used as examples of players that would do better against two GOATs than current crop. ridiculous. they were limited and mentally destroyed. neither Medvedev neither Zverev will let Djoko toy with them in that manner.

 

[saivet]

It is a weak era, because the players you mentioned have the ability, but their mentality is so pisspoor they get destroyed at GS events. They lack the hunger and drive to match Nadal and Djokovic who are far from their peak powers.

Wawrinka, Del Potro, Murray, Ferrer and co had to deal with them in their primes, when they were unstoppable.

Zverev, Berrettini, Medvedev and Tsitsipas have them at their worst and still can't do anything. There's something very pathetic about it.

The likes of Roddick and Hewitt would wipe the floor with this lot.

I think you're a bit harsh on them and I very much doubt Roddick and Hewitt would wipe the floor with them given they didn't wipe the floor with any in their generation. Zverev has been the most disappointing of them in Majors but Berrettini has been pretty consistent, the only last time he lost in a grand slam to someone not named Nadal or Djokovic was 2020 US Open final.

Medvedev has been consistent in hard courts finals, making four grand slam finals against Nadal and Djokovic only receiving a beat down in one of them.

Tsistispas has beaten Federer and Nadal in grand slam matches and has made a RG final.

Nadal and Djokovic aren't at their peak but especially at grand slams they are still extremely good players.

 

[Desert Eagle]

Shoutout to Theim for getting his first win on the comeback tour. Enjoy the goats and top players while you can.

 

[George Owen]

Prime Davidenko was better than all of the current top 10.(aside from the goats)

 

[Andrade]

I disagree. random top 10-15 player should not be expected to wipe the floors with goats on weekly basis just because he's younger. Medvedev already destroyed Djoko in GS final, unthinkable for Roddick and Hewitt. Zverev also has great record against him, already winning in 3 major finals against him. that's good enough for me.

Zverev and Medvedev are not 'random top 10-15 players', they're guys who have been ranked number 2 and number 1 respectively. They are both past 25 (i.e. not young in tennis terms) and thus far have worse career winning percentages than Roddick and Hewitt (only slightly in Hewitt's case but a good 5-6% less in Roddick's case) and a lot less career titles. They can maybe make up the difference but they'd better get a move on.
.

one thing is certain, neither of them would get double bageled vs Nadal/Djoko like Hewitt used to in his GS finals vs Fed.

Total nonsense, if either of them had to play the GOATS at their peak in big GS matches, they'd get torn to shreds.

he lost 16 of 18 matches vs Fed since 2004 and Roddick 18 of 20, yet they're being used as examples of players that would do better against two GOATs than current crop. ridiculous

yes, because Federer was playing at an extraordinary level then. The two GOATS you are referring to aare now old and Nadal's knees are being held together by a piece of string. Not ridiculous at all. Some of us actually remember what peak Big 3 (and big 4) tennis was like.

ridiculous. they were limited and mentally destroyed. neither Medvedev neither Zverev will let Djoko toy with them in that manner.

If we could transport them back to 2004, Federer would have beaten them worse than he beat Hewitt and Roddick.

 

[saivet]

Zverev and Medvedev are not 'random top 10-15 players', they're guys who have been ranked number 2 and number 1 respectively. They are both past 25 (i.e. not young in tennis terms) and thus far have worse career winning percentages than Roddick and Hewitt (only slightly in Hewitt's case but a good 5-6% less in Roddick's case) and a lot less career titles. They can maybe make up the difference but they'd better get a move on.

Looking at big titles, there isn't really all that much difference between Hewitt and Roddick's achievements compared to Medvedev and Zverev to date.

Majors:
Hewitt: 2 (2 finals lost)
Roddick: 1 (4 finals lost)
Medvedev: 1 (3 finals lost)
Zverev: 0 (1 final lost)

Masters 1000:
Roddick: 5
Zverev: 5
Medvedev: 4
Hewitt: 2

Year End Championships:
Hewitt: 2
Zverev: 2
Medvedev: 1
Roddick: 0

 

[Andrade]

Looking at big titles, there isn't really all that much difference between Hewitt and Roddick's achievements compared to Medvedev and Zverev to date.

Majors:
Hewitt: 2 (2 finals lost)
Roddick: 1 (4 finals lost)
Medvedev: 1 (3 finals lost)
Zverev: 0 (1 final lost)

Masters 1000:
Roddick: 5
Zverev: 5
Medvedev: 4
Hewitt: 2

Year End Championships:
Hewitt: 2
Zverev: 2
Medvedev: 1
Roddick: 0

Which is why I didn't just look at the big titles.

 

[Bole Top]

Zverev and Medvedev are not 'random top 10-15 players', they're guys who have been ranked number 2 and number 1 respectively. They are both past 25 (i.e. not young in tennis terms) and thus far have worse career winning percentages than Roddick and Hewitt (only slightly in Hewitt's case but a good 5-6% less in Roddick's case) and a lot less career titles. They can maybe make up the difference but they'd better get a move on.

perfectly normal when playing in tougher era. the main difference is, Med and Zverev proved they are actually good enough to win in big finals and those are the factos, I'm afraid. it's already more than Roddick and Hewitt ever achieved and they can only add more given their age.

Total nonsense, if either of them had to play the GOATS at their peak in big GS matches, they'd get torn to shreds.

nah. they're simply better players overall than your usual punching bags from that era. I can imagine both Zverev or Med unlocking their own inner Stanimal mode in certain matches. Roddick and Hewitt proved they weren't capable of that.

yes, because Federer was playing at an extraordinary level then. The two GOATS you are referring to aare now old and Nadal's knees are being held together by a piece of string. Not ridiculous at all. Some of us actually remember what peak Big 3 (and big 4) tennis was like.

old doesn't mean in bad shape. both of them are physical monsters and are playing at very good level. Fed was playing at extraordinary level partly because of his opponents. he suddenly grew old over night when he turned 26, right? well, he didn't. it's just that better players appeared on tour and I'm not even talking about Nadal and Djoko. look how he struggled with Murray for example when he was he was far from being old.

If we could transport them back to 2004, Federer would have beaten them worse than he beat Hewitt and Roddick.

nonsense of course.

 

[ExoduS]

It is a weak era, because the players you mentioned have the ability, but their mentality is so pisspoor they get destroyed at GS events. They lack the hunger and drive to match Nadal and Djokovic who are far from their peak powers.

Wawrinka, Del Potro, Murray, Ferrer and co had to deal with them in their primes, when they were unstoppable.

Zverev, Berrettini, Medvedev and Tsitsipas have them at their worst and still can't do anything. There's something very pathetic about it.

The likes of Roddick and Hewitt would wipe the floor with this lot.

I respectfully disagree that Djokovic and Nadal are at their worst. Both Djokovic and Nadal had their lows and players like Kyrgios, Istomin, Daniel Taro, Goffan, Rosol, Sam Querrey were beating them. I have listened to many tennis podcasts over last two days and everyone praised Novak's game in the final. That was Novak at close to his very best. Nadal's game against Djokovic at RG was Nadal at his very high level. Are Djokovic and Nadal at their prime? Off course not, but these guys elevated themselves to such heights that even their "normal" level is extremely challenging to others. It's testament of their greatness, not testament of a weak era. Consistency is not mediocrity, consistency is what years and years of training produced.

Big 3 created each other. Federer paved the way, Nadal followed. Djokovic was the 3rd wheel who had to figure out how to beat both and at the same time his peer - Murray.

 

[Zen]

I'd say any era Todd Martin and Cedric Pioline could make 2 finals each was the weakest era. Argument over.

 

[Red the Bear]

Why does it seem that everyone puts murray on the same bracket as the the big 3?
Well I'm kinda exaggerating but everyone holds him in a very high regard and there is a very huge gap between them and murray in my opinion so is he extremely over rated or was he that good before injuries rekt his career?

 

[saivet]

Why does it seem that everyone puts murray on the same bracket as the the big 3?
Well I'm kinda exaggerating but everyone holds him in a very high regard and there is a very huge gap between them and murray in my opinion so is he extremely over rated or was he that good before injuries rekt his career?

He elevated his game beyond the field and while a losing head to head against them he had some big wins against them all and was consistently making later rounds in grand slams and master events. A bit of an outlier to the other 3 but he was relevant in a much bigger way than guys like Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer.

 

[Gringo]

No one puts Andy in the same bracket of top 3. But Murrays peak of 2012-2013 was exceptional. Beat Novak, beat Roger (not sure if he faced Rafa). He was a monster for a few tournaments. Very very tough for mere mortals to stretch that peak out for long.

 

[Red the Bear]

He elevated his game beyond the field and while a losing head to head against them he had some big wins against them all and was consistently making later rounds in grand slams and master events. A bit of an outlier to the other 3 but he was relevant in a much bigger way than guys like Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer.

I looked at some stats and admittedly his stats are better than everyone else but it's still a far cry from their level, his all time win percentage against them is 33.7(the second best thiem is at 27) and his career total of 3 grand slam ain't much to write home about.

I'm not trying to undermine his achievements as he was damn good but I guess my gripe is mainly with that big 4 term as it put him in their ranks which I always found ludicrous.

 

[Zen]

Murrays boderline top 10 all time. Dude achieved what he did and was miles ahead of the rest, including Stan, behind the 3 greatest ever…. he’s way ahead of the Becket, Edberg, Wilander crowd

 

[altodevil]

I looked at some stats and admittedly his stats are better than everyone else but it's still a far cry from their level, his all time win percentage against them is 33.7(the second best thiem is at 27) and his career total of 3 grand slam ain't much to write home about.

I'm not trying to undermine his achievements as he was damn good but I guess my gripe is mainly with that big 4 term as it put him in their ranks which I always found ludicrous.

It was absolutely a big 4 at times. Murray is an all-timer. He has like the 15th highest win rate of all time, despite playing alongside Federer djoko and nadalinho

 

[saivet]

It was absolutely a big 4 at times. Murray is an all-timer. He has like the 15th highest win rate of all time, despite playing alongside Federer djoko and nadalinho

He's also 8th in the most men's grand slam semi finals. Think the big 4 was coined as he was often in the final 4 of many tournaments as much as anything.

 

[Red the Bear]

It was absolutely a big 4 at times. Murray is an all-timer. He has like the 15th highest win rate of all time, despite playing alongside Federer djoko and nadalinho

I'm just don't see it, big 4 implies that he's on the same footing as the other 3 while that never really was the case.
I'm not as knowledgeable on tennis as I'm on football and boxing do perhaps it's just my piss poor take but it's what it is.

 

[Andrade]

perfectly normal when playing in tougher era. the main difference is, Med and Zverev proved they are actually good enough to win in big finals and those are the factos, I'm afraid. it's already more than Roddick and Hewitt ever achieved and they can only add more given their age.

Except it's not a tougher era. Again, what big finals did they prove they're good enough to win in? Zverev has zero grand slams and Med has one. How do they already have more than LH and AR? Do you mean the tour finals? In which case you're also wrong. What are you actually talking about?

nah. they're simply better players overall than your usual punching bags from that era. I can imagine both Zverev or Med unlocking their own inner Stanimal mode in certain matches. Roddick and Hewitt proved they weren't capable of that.

Hilarious. You must be German. Or Russian. The Federer of that time would destroy these guys.

old doesn't mean in bad shape. both of them are physical monsters and are playing at very good level. Fed was playing at extraordinary level partly because of his opponents. he suddenly grew old over night when he turned 26, right? well, he didn't. it's just that better players appeared on tour and I'm not even talking about Nadal and Djoko. look how he struggled with Murray for example when he was he was far from being old.

Total rubbish

nonsense of course.

Pretty much describes your whole argument TBF.

 

[Andrade]

Why does it seem that everyone puts murray on the same bracket as the the big 3?
Well I'm kinda exaggerating but everyone holds him in a very high regard and there is a very huge gap between them and murray in my opinion so is he extremely over rated or was he that good before injuries rekt his career?

It was a genuine big 4 for a time but I think everyone accepts now that it is a big 3. Murray was a great player though before the injuries and could compete with all of them on an equal footing when he was at his best.

 

[Red the Bear]

It was a genuine big 4 for a time but I think everyone accepts now that it is a big 3. Murray was a great player though before the injuries and could compete with all of them on an equal footing when he was at his best.

Fair enough, I guess recency biass and his recent injuries have sullied my judgement of him.

 

[Amir]

Over the years there were periods it was the big 4, because any two of them could end up in a grand slam final. Historically it will be the big 3, because Murray just hasn't won enough of those finals.

 

[The Hilton]

The "weaker era" arguments don't hold any weight really, in either direction, the only accurate way to describe it is that there were different eras - not all that long ago most courts were a lot faster than they are now, not to mention changes in racket technology etc.

A lot of the top players nowadays would suffer back then against players who's games were designed for those conditions, and likewise players from back then would suffer against today's players on today's courts.

 

[Ajr]

Prime Davidenko was better than all of the current top 10.(aside from the goats)

I agree, criminally underrated player

 

[Zen]

Since Murray's injury basically happened as he peaked... here's a breakdown, his first issues came around mid to late 2016 which he mostly played through, to a pretty good level too. But we'll go from 2017.

Federer - 3 Slams, 1 RU
Nadal - 8 Slams, 2 RU
Djokovic - 9 Slams, 2 RU

Dude's injury killed his genuine momentum. If he had the durability, which isn't necassarily a skill, it's just pure luck, he has the same work ethic as the others which is the skill, he'd be 6 at the worst in my opinion... probably more.

Also the 'big 4' thing came to prominence in 2010-2016, a period in which, Murray won more Slams than Fed, went to more Finals than Fed, and only missed one single Quarter Final(2 if you count a missed tournament) compared to Federer missing 4(6 if you count missed tournament), though Federer was generally more consistent and stronger on the Masters and below. He also won 2 Golds and the Davis Cup, however much merit you want to put on it, given that if any truly great wanted it they could just win themselves more or less, unless there's something stopping them playing their 3 eligible games every round that I don't know about?

He was deserving of his slot in it.

 

[Bole Top]

How do they already have more than LH and AR? Do you mean the tour finals? In which case you're also wrong. What are you actually talking about?

you can't even follow your own posts. your original claim was that younger players aren't challenging the goats enough and then agreed with poster who named Zverev and Medvedev of all people - players who actually have wins over these goats in major finals. now name me the major finals that Roddick and Hewitt have won over Fed, as they were the examples of players that would be doing much better today and "wiping the floor" with current crop in the post you agreed 100% with.

you can't, because there are none - because they were simply a limited punching bags. punching bags never wipe the floor with anyone.

Hilarious. You must be German. Or Russian. The Federer of that time would destroy these guys.

Croatian actually and don't really like either of them. still better than punching bags from the past, though.

Pretty much describes your whole argument TBF.

make no mistake, I understand you. you're hurt because Fed slipped to third place among goats and the only argument left in his favor is how you personally prefer to watch him more and of course, how Lleyton and Roddick were this tough competitors. It's understandable that you'll try to preserve this myth as a typical fanboy, that's why you're so defensive on this whole subject. I'm just surprised you didn't mention El Aynaoui among these though, as he was also better than Med, Zverev and the rest

 

[amolbhatia50k]

There’s very little that separates them besides the fact that Fed is obviously less of a grinder and easier on the eye, however, he massively benefited from his incredible service game allowing to play him with more freedom and you wouldn’t bet on him if your life would depend on one tennis match, that would be Novak/Rafa for sure.

On the other hand Federer didn't benefit from the slower courts and favorable conditions for defensive long rally tennis.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Since Murray's injury basically happened as he peaked... here's a breakdown, his first issues came around mid to late 2016 which he mostly played through, to a pretty good level too. But we'll go from 2017.

Federer - 3 Slams, 1 RU
Nadal - 8 Slams, 2 RU
Djokovic - 9 Slams, 2 RU

Dude's injury killed his genuine momentum. If he had the durability, which isn't necassarily a skill, it's just pure luck, he has the same work ethic as the others which is the skill, he'd be 6 at the worst in my opinion... probably more.

Also the 'big 4' thing came to prominence in 2010-2016, a period in which, Murray won more Slams than Fed, went to more Finals than Fed, and only missed one single Quarter Final(2 if you count a missed tournament) compared to Federer missing 4(6 if you count missed tournament), though Federer was generally more consistent and stronger on the Masters and below. He also won 2 Golds and the Davis Cup, however much merit you want to put on it, given that if any truly great wanted it they could just win themselves more or less, unless there's something stopping them playing their 3 eligible games every round that I don't know about?

He was deserving of his slot in it.

He wasn't deserving of any such slot. Wawrinka has the same number of grand slams. It's not the be all and end all indicator but three of tennis' greatest ever players and Andy Murray is no big 4.

It's like calling Messi, Ronaldo and Mo Salah the big three of the modern era of football- which reads even stupider than it sounds.

 

[KirkDuyt]

He wasn't deserving of any such slot. Wawrinka has the same number of grand slams. It's not the be all and end all indicator but three of tennis' greatest ever players and Andy Murray is no big 4.

It's like calling Messi, Ronaldo and Mo Salah the big three of the modern era of football- which reads even stupider than it sounds.

I think Murray is to tennis what Feyenoord is to Dutch football. We're clearly not as good as Ajax and PSV, but clearly better than the rest. Though, unlike Murray, we also won way more titles than the rest, but eh.

I'd say it's a big 3 and Murray is best of the rest.

 

[Red the Bear]

He wasn't deserving of any such slot. Wawrinka has the same number of grand slams. It's not the be all and end all indicator but three of tennis' greatest ever players and Andy Murray is no big 4.

It's like calling Messi, Ronaldo and Mo Salah the big three of the modern era of football- which reads even stupider than it sounds.

That was my impression as well but didn't want to word it that harshly

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Hardly any Tennis fans in this thread. Anyone talking about who’s best should be thread-banned for a month. It’s Fcuking moronic.

In an attempt to inject a little life into a thread about a topic I love…..

If you could only ever watch one Tennis match for the rest of your life, 5 sets, all tight with loads of service breaks, on any court, who are you going with?

I’d take Federer playing Agassi at Wimbledon on Court 1, before they put the roof on, in the sunshine. Agassi doesn’t have to wear White. For no particular reason, they both have those little rubber gimmick string dampeners on their racquets.

 

[TheLiverBird]

Why does it seem that everyone puts murray on the same bracket as the the big 3?
Well I'm kinda exaggerating but everyone holds him in a very high regard and there is a very huge gap between them and murray in my opinion so is he extremely over rated or was he that good before injuries rekt his career?

No one put him in the same bracket, that’s impossible

but what people do is pay him the biggest compliment in that he made it the “big 4” for a period

Nadal Federer Djokovic…..they are freaks! and the only player to elevate….at times, too their standards was Murray, Stan possibly too but not on Murray’s level imo

Murray at his peak, especially 2012-13, was out of this world level like the 3 greats standard wise, he was a beast at his best, I genuinely believe if it weren’t for injuries then he’d have a couple more GS’s to his name amongst the era of the 3 greats

makes Nadal look even more freakish as he’s on 22 slams now…..plagued with injury

 

[Andrade]

you can't even follow your own posts. your original claim was that younger players aren't challenging the goats enough and then agreed with poster who named Zverev and Medvedev of all people - players who actually have wins over these goats in major finals. now name me the major finals that Roddick and Hewitt have won over Fed, as they were the examples of players that would be doing much better today and "wiping the floor" with current crop in the post you agreed 100% with.

Again, you need to clarify what you mean by major finals. I've asked you about ten times now and you keep ignoring the question for some reason. In the grand slams, the biggest tournaments, where, y'know, it's best of five sets big boy tennis, Zverev has zero wins in any round against Old Djokovic and zero wins in any round against Old Nadal. Medvedev has zero wins in any round v Old Nadal and one win in the final of the US Open v Old Djokovic (whoopie doo!). But Old Djokovic has beaten him twice in slams fairly easily. That US Open win is the sole slam that either of these two 'monsters' has won. And they're 25 and 26, which ain't young. You're pretty easily impressed it seems.

you can't, because there are none - because they were simply a limited punching bags. punching bags never wipe the floor with anyone.

You probably never watched either of them play.

Croatian actually and don't really like either of them. still better than punching bags from the past, though.

Croatian with German or Russian roots probably

make no mistake, I understand you. you're hurt because Fed slipped to third place among goats and the only argument left in his favor is how you personally prefer to watch him more and of course, how Lleyton and Roddick were this tough competitors. It's understandable that you'll try to preserve this myth as a typical fanboy, that's why you're so defensive on this whole subject. I'm just surprised you didn't mention El Aynaoui among these though, as he was also better than Med, Zverev and the rest

Nah but Safin, Philippoussis and late era Agassi probably were. You never saw any of them though most likely.

I'm not hurt at all BT, nor am I a 'fanboy', any more than you are of whoever you consider to he the best. You are arguing very aggressively that Fed never faced anyone in the early 2000s and slandering actual Grand Slam champions (not a category Mr Zverev currently belongs to), which is far more in the vein of 'fanboyish' behaviour, I'd submit.

Also, it's not the only argument left for Fed that he has by far the most beautiful game, although that's a very strong argument. He also still has the most overall titles, the most year end championships, the record for consecutive weeks at number one etc. etc. He hasn't slipped to third in any sensible GOAT debate. Many will always consider him to be the best, and the same for the other two.