Tennis

[Fapuccino]

Djokovic hitting a ref is the most exciting thing to happen in Tennis the last 5 years

 

[Wings]

He didn't look frustrated when it happens. It just looked like that he sent the ball back?

Players usually don't give a ball back like that when they're that close. And she was a referee, not a ballkid, so no reason to give the ball to her. Djokovic was definitely frustrated, he was down a break.

 

[FCBarca]

Djokovic hitting a ref is the most exciting thing to happen in Tennis the last 5 years

I thought Williams' meltdown against Osaka at the US Open was far more noteworthy

 

[K.I.]

It was def a good match, Thiem had it the in the bag though shame he couldn't finish it off, hope he wins a a grand slam title soon.

Respect to Djokovic hung in there and finished it off with ease and his post speech was top notch as well, respect to both.

Great final as well, Thiem made Denver proud

 

[brehme1989]

Medveded going out so early feels awkward but I guess he's not at that level yet where you can say it's a huge surprise.

Expecting to see some nice 3rd round matchups provided they all qualify. Shapovalov vs Dimitrov should be a nice one, I think Shapo beat him a week or so ago and the winner plays against Tsitsipas, which should also keep things interesting there, but he's too inconsistent.
Rublev vs Anderson could be interesting.
Wawrink vs Thiem in the 4th round could be appealing as both excel on this ground and could very well reach the final, though I think they'll cross with Nadal in the semi.


Cannot say there's anything else that would look exciting on paper until the quarters. No Federer is a bummer. Anyone but Nadal please, he's got enough of these

 

[Javier'sSon]

Can someone provide a streaming link?

 

[brehme1989]

Well done Hugo Gaston. Now beat Thiem

 

[Wings]

Medveded going out so early feels awkward but I guess he's not at that level yet where you can say it's a huge surprise.

He's also pretty bad on clay, I don't think he's won a match at the French Open yet.

 

[Howl]

Anyone watching the French Open final? Djokovic is getting absolutely destroyed by Nadal 6-0 & 6-2 so far. Nadal is just unstoppable.

 

[brehme1989]

Completely unplayable today.

 

[Il Drago]

Anyone watching the French Open final? Djokovic is getting absolutely destroyed by Nadal 6-0 & 6-2 so far. Nadal is just unstoppable.

I was. Djokovic somewhat recovered in the third set but it still wasn't enough to prevent a 3-0 for Nadal. Rafa simply is the king of Roland-Garros.

 

[n4l]

Rafa is the GOAT. As much as I love the Fedexpress....

 

[brehme1989]

Rafa is the GOAT. As much as I love the Fedexpress....

I wouldn't really subscribe to this but he's definitely a top contender and it's not that hard to argue that he's the greatest ever. I think when it's all said and done, both Djokovic and Federer would be considered greater.

I think he's one win away from reaching 1,000.


There are several arguments to be made about the three, but there's also others that deserve to be mentioned. For example Bjorn Borg. Very short lived career in comparison, but he never won a grand slam on hard surface. But having records at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon is impressive. He also played in a time where Australia wasn't really a thing, only a handful of top players would go there and it was flooded by local tennis players and the jet lag was usually a killer.

The sport wasn't as professional as it has become since the late 90s, so I think these comparisons should be split into at least three periods.

Amateur era (up to the late 60s)
Early professional era (early 70s to early 90s)
Modern era (mid 90s and on)

Amateur era is difficult to talk about and you can also create sub groups of pre-ww2 and post-ww2. There wasn't much travelling in the pre-ww2 era and it wasn't a thing till the 60s.

I guess Rod Laver is the greatest ever in the amateur era, no questions asked.
But some other names like Ken Rosewall, Roy Emerson, Rene Lacoste, Henri Cochet, Fred Perry and Bill Tilden also need some respect. At least two of them got it as their branded clothes are still quite popular

The early professional era has candidates like Bjorn Borg who probably was the greatest and could hold out well against the modern trio as well if he lasted longer, there's Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Mats Wilander and Boris Becker, while perhaps Guillermo Villas deserves a shout but he's not breaking the top 6, with Ilie Nastase being around his level as well and then you have Stefan Edberg. Maybe John Newcombe completes the top 10 here but he's mostly an earlier era player.

This era should not really be in direct comparison with the modern era.

The modern era has its first top player in Pete Sampras. I think for most people the trio of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic has surpassed him but really, they should be considered a Big Four, if only they had managed to compete against each other. Andre Agassi is another one but he falls short to make it a big five, but I'd argue it's safe to say that he's the #5 guy in this era even if Andy Murray pushes for that spot. But who comes after these guys?
Stan Wawrinka, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin? The list becomes very underwhelming based on achievements so does this make the Big Three much more impressive or does it raise question marks about the quality of their opposition? Maybe a little bit of both, but I think in the last 15 years the quality of tennis has risen a lot overall.

But we all agree that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are by far the top 3 here. What causes disagreement is their actual ranking.

Another thing that makes the comparison harder is that the surface of the Grand Slams wasn't always the same. The US Open and Australian Open were played in grass. Australia until the late 80s. USA had grass and clay until the 70s.

Anyhow. Rafael Nadal has the best W-L % of the entire Open Era, with Djokovic following him very close by. Federer is 4th, behind Borg.

Against Top 10 opposition, Borg is #1 of all time with a healthy advantage over the 2nd who is Novak Djokovic. Rafael Nadal is 3rd, slightly ahead of Boris Becker and Roger Federer, while Andy Murray actually cracks the Top 10 being 9th. With Agassi being 10th.

Roger Federer has a slight disadvantage here due to timing as he had to face Pete Sampras as a young kid (and he beat him at Wimbledon ending a 30+ win streak of Sampras, not sure if they played again), competed against Agassi before reaching his prime while Agassi was still at a very high level and he had to face both Nadal and Djokovic at their prime whilst he was getting much older (he is 5 year older than Nadal and 6 years older than Djokovic) when the others were still at their best.

Nadal probably is going to surpass Federer in total Grand Slams now that he's equalled his 20 win tally.
Djokovic is lagging at 3 behind both of them, but he's in the best position to surpass them.

But here's an interesting stat:
Federer has 11 hard court wins, 8 grass wins and 1 clay court win.
Nadal has 13 clay court wins, 5 hard court wins and 2 grass wins.
Djokovic has 11 hard court wins, 5 grass wins and 1 clay court win.

Federer and Djokovic have a very similar run, only difference is that Novak mostly wins in Australia and Federer wins at both at the same rate.
Then you have Nadal whose track record outside Paris is similar to the other two in Paris.

When split into decades, Federer has won in the 2000s 15 titles, with Nadal being the 2nd person in wins with just 6, 4 of which were in Paris.
In the 2010s, Djokovic has won 15 titles and Nadal has won 14 titles. It's also crazy to think that Federer won 5, while having a 4 year drought which enabled guys like Murray to win 2, Wawrinka to win 3 and even Cilic won one. For me, that's the biggest question mark about Federer. He should have been at his best during that time but instead he was failing left and right. That defeat in Wimbledon against the Ukrainian probably hit him harder than it should have. And the year after was probably one of the greatest finals ever in 2014 Wimbledon, that probably was a bigger strain on his mental well being. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWBdi9uwMVw)

It also creates a bigger question mark in my view on the other two guys. Federer pretty much let them close the gap at the time. Djokovic effectively became the new Federer while Roger was watching him do things he was supposed to be doing. That's a big + for Novak actually.

2020s of course with one weird season yet, it's one each for Djokovic and Nadal and it perhaps is unfair on Federer who had scheduled a knee injury to be back in time for Wimbledon which he could have won as a last hurrah but it got cancelled entirely. Not sure if he can pull it off next year.


Only three times we've seen a completed Grand Slam, and twice it was by the same player. Rod Laver in 1962 and 1969, which makes it even more impressive as it wasn't just that he was too dominant for 1-2 years, but there was a 7 year gap there. And an American called Don Budge before WW2 also did it.

Three in a calendar year was achieved by the Big Three.
3 times for Federer
2 times for Djokovic
1 time for Nadal

Nadal on the other hand leads when it's two in calendar year:
4 times for Nadal
3 times for Djokovic
3 times for Federer

Reaching the QFs in all four tournaments in a calendar year, Federer has achieved this 8 years in a row, Djokovic follows with 6 in a row. Nadal has achieved this 5 years in total, never more than twice in a row.

All three have been impressive really, but I think I'd rate Federer and Djokovic ahead of Nadal.

 

[K.I.]

RF and Nadal both had serious injuries over the years that maybe let that gap slip. One thing that i credit Djokovic for is that he is tough, durable combined that with consistency in a game it makes him really hard to beat because even if he isn't playing his best he does well enough to stay in it until he starts improving as the match progresses, something that helps him a lot in 5 setters and tie breaks with the RF match example u gave.

Really hard in general to say who is better out of the 3, all 3 are unbeatable at their best.

 

[Adriano@10]

To me it will always be Fed maybe cause i m swiss maybe cause i personally think he s the most talented of them.
How can i describe it for me it s a bit like the original Ronaldo vs CR7 and messi. To me the original ronaldo will always stay the best player i ve ever seen even if the other two have won more same will go for federer..
Than again i guess if one would be fair it would go something like Rafa is the goat on sand Federer on Grass and Djoko probably the best allrounder

 

[K.I.]

Fed to me will always be the best talent wise, when he first started he reminded me a lot of Sampras and the fact that he is still going strong to this day given the amount of games he played and his injury issues is beyond impressive. The way he strikes the ball is so smooth and effortless.

Nadal is just a different type of player being so dynamic and standing far off the baseline hitting bombs and Djokovic being like a combination of both but yah i can see why people would ague for any of them.

 

[n4l]

Once Nadal beat Fed @ Wimbeldon, tbh, it was over if they ever had equal # of grand slams. Nadal has beaten them @ their best, @ their best place. They have not done that to Nadal. I mean, Nadal SMOKES THEM on clay. It's not even a competitive game.

So that's how i look at it because stats and all that will end up being very similar. So if I can beat you on your surface but you can't even be competitive against me on mine, then I know who the better player is.

Like I said, I love Fed like no other and really wanted him to win more so that Nadal could never catch him with total # of slams.

 

[brehme1989]

It's a solid argument. I'll give you another one.

Nadal has a 6-3 finals record vs Federer, with 4 of those coming from Roland Garros.
Nadal has a 5-4 finals record vs Djokovic, with 3 of those coming from Roland Garros.
Djokovic has the edge vs Federer with a 4-1 finals record. Federer is a Wimbledon guy but Djokovic beat him in 3/3 finals there.

Overall, Nadal vs Federer is 24-16. Federer has an extra 'win' in a walkover.
16/40 matches were on clay court and Nadal won 14 of those.
4/40 matches were on grass and Nadal won only 1, but it was the Wimbledon final, one of the greatest games ever back in 2008.
Nadal won 8 games on hard court with Federer winning 6 (+1 walkover).
Indoor arenas that also had hard court, Federer won 5/6 times.

Nadal vs Djokovic I think is the most frequent matchup of them all.
But Djokovic has the slight advantage here.
29 vs 27 wins and 15-12 in finals.
Nadal has a 10-6 record in Grand Slams but has a 6-1 bonus from Roland Garros.
Clay: 18-7 for Nadal
Grass: 2-2
Hard: 16-5 for Djokovic
Indoor (hard) : 4-2 for Djokovic

It kinda evens out with these two on their favored turf, but it feels surprising that Djokovic doesn't do better against Nadal on the grass.

Federer vs Djokovic on the other hand.
Federer has 6 grand slam victories against Djokovic's 11 victories. Remarkably, the last time Federer beat Djokovic in a grand slam was back in 2012 and they played 6 times since.
Djokovic has the upper hand here as well with a 27-23 record.
Clay: 4-4
Grass: 3-1 Djokovic
Hard: 14-13 Djokovic
Indoor (hard) : 6-5 Djokovic

Nadal also does not have any ATP Finals trophies, which is a bit of a surprise. He lost twice in a final, one each to Federer and Djokovic. You would expect him to be more competitive in what is considered the 5th most important trophy of the year.

If we remove the clay from Nadal's career, we are left with 7 Grand Slams, a losing 10-12 record vs Federer and a losing 9-22 record vs Djokovic.

If we remove the most successful hard from Djokovic's career as there's no point in penalizing him further, which would be the Australian Open, we are left with 9 Grand Slams. Removing all hard surface games, he has a losing record of 9-20 vs Nadal and a winning record of 7-5 vs Federer. If we remove the US Open as well, it falls to 6 Grand slams.

If we remove the grass from Federer's career, we are left with 12 Grand Slams, a losing 13-23 record vs Nadal and a losing 22-24 record vs Djokovic.


So on the big stage Nadal wins more between the three, but overall Djokovic has won more games against them. But taking this into account, it seems like Federer is the greatest winner all around as he suffers the least when you take away his strongest surface.

 

[Adriano@10]

Honestly i think age should also be factored in with federer being 6 years older than djoko and 5 years older than rafa...
I d argue that those 5/6 years matter. then again will never have a like for like comparison.
As i ve said before imho prime roger is the best i ve ever seen.

 

[brehme1989]

Would you say the level of tennis is higher in 2005-2010 than 2015-2020? The big three aside.