altodevil
Odds winner of 'Odds or Evens 2023/2024'
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2013
- Messages
- 17,502
Why isn't Borg in these discussions? Career length?
Borg I think was recognised as the greatest till about 2007 when Federer usurped him. I think Federer has just added to his legacy since and both Rafa and Novak have overtaken him too.Why isn't Borg in these discussions? Career length?
See in this way you're going to explain away every time Novak has dominated by Federer being off peak. Federer's absolute peak came at a time when Rafa and Novak were still kids and yet in that 05-08 period they were both giving Federer a run for their money in their H2H matches and in Rafa's case, even beating him at Roger's favorite surfaces.Well first off you need to decide which peak level of Djokovic are you considering.
From 2014 Wimbey till 2016 he won 6 out of 10 slams he competed in. Was #1 and won 6 masters in one season as well as posting his best season to date results.
During that time Nadal missed 2 slams, made it 2 times past the 4th round(2 QF's), was bagelled by Berdych in one of them and won zero sets in those QF's.
Federer on the other hand missed 2 slams. Finished 2016 at #16 - his career low so far and was miles off his best.
Federer is 5-1 against Murray in grand slams. Hardly Murray will cause him more trouble when he was actually at his peak at slams is it?
If you mean 2011 Djokovic - Federer (who again was off his peak) was 2 MP away from beating him in the 2 slams they've met.
In any case I'm not sure how you can consider Djokovic field to be better, especially 2014-2016.
I'm not sure your argument there. Djokovic peak came later in 2015 and 2016. He won most of his slams then and broke most of his records then. Having great results doesn't particularly mean his best years came in 2011 don't you agree?See in this way you're going to explain away every time Novak has dominated by Federer being off peak. Federer's absolute peak came at a time when Rafa and Novak were still kids and yet in that 05-08 period they were both giving Federer a run for their money in their H2H matches and in Rafa's case, even beating him at Roger's favorite surfaces.
The "off peak" Roger Federer is still probably Top 3 GOAT contender and he was really making Novak work for the wins even in the 2011-12 phase and even beat him a decent amount of times including Wimbledon and RG if I'm not wrong. If not for Novak, there's a good chance Federer would be on something like 23 Slams right now.
As for peak Novak, I find his 2011-12 version the biggest because he's had to get past Federer multiple times and he's beaten Rafa at all the Slam finals. Beating Rafa 7 FINALS in a row is a staggering achievement given how good Rafa is at finals.
Unfortunately yes. Fantastic credentials and also game especially being able to dominate 2 surfaces, but his career length doesn't do him much favor.Why isn't Borg in these discussions? Career length?
Novak has had to beat a Rafa in imperious form in 2 of his last 3 Slam wins. If that's a weak field, I'm not sure what to call pulverizing the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzalez and Bagdatis in finals of Slams..I'm not sure your argument there. Djokovic peak came later in 2015 and 2016. He won most of his slams then and broke most of his records then. Having great results doesn't particularly mean his best years came in 2011 don't you agree?
Federer in 2016 played 28 matches in total, that was his worst year since 15-20 years ago. Nadal was close to non existent after 2014 FO up until 2017 AO at slams.
If you come with this bullshit weak era argument, then Novak's era was even worse from 2014 on. He won 9 of his 15 slams from 2014 on.
This is something I've always said. Out of the Top 3, Novak has had it toughest in terms of the field he's been up against.Most Grand Slams Won Without Facing a Top-10 Opponent in Final:
Sampras 7
Federer 4
Nadal 2
Djokovic 1
Most Grand Slams Won By Facing Only One Top-10 Player in Whole Tournament:
Sampras 7
Federer 3
Nadal 3
Djokovic 2
Most Grand Slams Won Without Having To Beat a Single Top-5 Player:
Federer 5
Sampras 4
Nadal 1
Djokovic 0
Most Grand Slams Won With Having to Beat ‘At least’ Three Top-5 Players:
Djokovic 5
Federer 5
Nadal 3
Sampras 1
Record of Top-10 players beaten in a same Grand Slam:
Federer 4
Nadal 3
Djokovic 3
Sampras 3
Record of Top-five players beaten in a same Grand Slam:
Federer 3
Nadal 3
Djokovic 3
Sampras 2
Most Grand Slams won without beating at least one of the other three Big Four members:
Federer 12
Nadal 2
Djokovic 0
Percentage of matches from the quarter-finals against a non-Top-10 player:
Sampras 57.1%
Nadal 33.3% (15/45)
Federer 31.6% (18/57)
Djokovic 25.6% (9/36)
I'm not sure if you read what I've wrote above. Your first quote was this:Novak has had to beat a Rafa in imperious form in 2 of his last 3 Slam wins. If that's a weak field, I'm not sure what to call pulverizing the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzalez and Bagdatis in finals of Slams..
Djokovic's dominance was from 14-16 where he won most of his slams. I wouldn't call one year 11' a dominance, especially since after that he didn't win more than 1 slam per year up until his actual dominance.I find Djokovic's dominance far more impressive than Federer's.
Federer 04-07, well, we know what the field was like.
15 years ago surfaces were more diverse than now. Wimbledon got slower and slower.There was an interesting article around 2 years ago about difficultly of Slams for the Top 3 :
This is something I've always said. Out of the Top 3, Novak has had it toughest in terms of the field he's been up against.
Nah, I think the 2015/2016 he was more complete and IMO better at both clay and grass. He improved on those surfaces whilst kept his level on hard.I think Djokovic in 2011 was the best version we've seen of him. This discussion will always be premature because they are all still playing at a high level but if they all finish with the same number of slams I'd consider Novak the GOAT (should other factors outside of the slams not change much)
2015 was probably the more complete version of Djokovic but I think 2011 was just more impressive with the players he was beating.Nah, I think the 2015/2016 he was more complete and IMO better at both clay and grass. He improved on those surfaces whilst kept his level on hard.
That statement is contradictoryso far it's Fed, but obviously it won't end like this. let's say all three of them end their careers with 20 grand slams total, this his how I'd look at them:
Djokovic - for me, he would be the GOAT in that case. but the thing is, I'd consider him as the greatest even if he's on 19 grand slams and Fed is on 20. for me, total number of slams is deciding factor when we compare 15 vs 20, but if it comes down to only one GS between them, I'd have to take everything else into account. Djokovic's path to those grand slams and the rivals he had, the fact he's the only one who has won every ATP masters tournament and there's good chance he'll end career as the one who has won the most of them in the history of tennis. he's also one ATP tour finals title away from having the most of them (will be tied with Fed), not to mention better head to head with Nadal and Fed. he would have almost everything on his side in that case so for me, he would be the greatest.
Nadal - imo, he needs to win one more than Djoko and Fed to be considered as the greatest. otherwise he'll "only" be equal to them. it's a popular thing to say that he wins mostly on one surface, but there's another way to look at that; he proved he can beat both Djoko and Fed on grass and other hard courts, but they never did the same. that's why I consider his peak level to be higher than both Roger's and Novak's. he could beat peak Fed in Wimbledon - Fed was never good enough to do the same in RG. he was just untouchable there. he will always have that against both of them and currently have the most ATP masters titles. but like I've said, while I could consider Novak as GOAT even with 19 grand slams, among three of them Rafa is the only one I think that needs to have the most grand slams at the end of his career to be considered as undisputedly the greatest of all time.
yeah, a bit. what I wanted to say is that if he had the most grand slams, at least that's something you couldn't take away from him. but if they're all on 20, plenty would still point on Djokovic's better head to head record, much better record on other courts, much better record at ATP finals etc. there would still be plenty to dispute in that case, not to mention that other than that "freak" US open win in 2017, he hasn't won GS other than RG for about 7 or 8 years. he has also never won the ATP finals. the way it's going, Novak has most of the stats going in his favour and there would be less to dispute in his case if they're both on 20 for example.That statement is contradictory
See, the issue I have with this supposedly weak/strong field is that players peak at different times and can beat whoever is in front of them. You can always pluck holes in each of those greats resumes as hardly their career overlapped(especially in Federer's case as he's much younger than them).2015 was probably the more complete version of Djokovic but I think 2011 was just more impressive with the players he was beating.
I personally don't think he would be.Will Federer still be considered goat if he ends up behind the other two on slams? Think the order will be Djoko, Rafa and Federer.
He had a strong first serve on that second match point to be fair. But as you say the margins are just incredible.Federer was a strong first serve away from sealing it yesterday. Well not sealing it, but it would've made his case that much stronger.
Fine fecking margins.
Ah right, Djoko hit that passing shot.He had a strong first serve on that second match point to be fair. But as you say the margins are just incredible.
Gah it would be great to see a prime Sampras and Agassi against prime Fed / Rafa / NovakThink Sampras would beat this current 3. Especially based on their poor performances this Wimbledon.
Well, it would be a strong case specially for Djokovic if he overtakes Federer in Grand Slams.Will Federer still be considered goat if he ends up behind the other two on slams? Think the order will be Djoko, Rafa and Federer.
Agassi would get butchered.Gah it would be great to see a prime Sampras and Agassi against prime Fed / Rafa / Novak
Nah. He’d be quite alright at the Aussie and the USO. Probably the only service returner better than him is Djokovic. His peak didn’t last nearly as long because of his personal life, but when he was at his peak, he could play with anybody.Agassi would get butchered.
I think you'd have to weigh up how many finals fed lost against the opponents etc.Will Federer still be considered goat if he ends up behind the other two on slams? Think the order will be Djoko, Rafa and Federer.
What?Agassi would get butchered.
Well he wasn't called Tiger Tim for no reason. Pound for pound he was the most complete tennis ball player of all time.I don't follow closely enough to have an opinion on this but I'm pretty sure Henman was the greatest tennis player ever.
Definitely not. The person who leads in slams will almost certainly be viewed as the greatest tennis player ever (with the other two viewed as very close behind).Will Federer still be considered goat if he ends up behind the other two on slams? Think the order will be Djoko, Rafa and Federer.
I don't disagree but don't underestimate Federer's massive cult following.Definitely not. The person who leads in slams will almost certainly be viewed as the greatest tennis player ever (with the other two viewed as very close behind).
IMO a 35 year old Federer wouldn’t push a 23 year old Agassi to 4 sets. He’d beat him in 4.What?
I swear people underrate some of the past players.
Agassi more than Sampras would give them a match because the courts suit his style of play unlike back then. Also people go on about Federer being old man doing well. Agassi in 2005 at 35 pushed Federer who was like 23 at the time to four sets in the US open final. He would far from get butchered in his prime.
Probably not the best age to pick for Federer there. He was on a 4 year Slam drought and recovering from knee surgery and a back injury at 35.IMO a 35 year old Federer wouldn’t push a 23 year old Agassi to 4 sets. He’d beat him in 4.
Well that’s just stupid logic. I’m going by the games they actually played not by your fairy tale logic. Agassi at 35 gave Federer a game in a season where Federer only suffered four losses.IMO a 35 year old Federer wouldn’t push a 23 year old Agassi to 4 sets. He’d beat him in 4.