Tennis

[Adriano@10]

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

Hard to say id probably go with 05 to 10 but it really depends on which season as the likes behind fed and nadal just never was consistent, not back then and not now.

 

[brehme1989]

Hard to say id probably go with 05 to 10 but it really depends on which season as the likes behind fed and nadal just never was consistent, not back then and not now.

I meant overall, not necessarily a given season.

For example that falls into Federer's prime.
2010-2015 would be Djokovic peak, but he still is in his prime.
Nadal is a super freak, he's been at the top since forever and has no clear prime.
I just think it makes the picture more clear if you spread the comparisons over certain time frames. 2005 and 2015 are random dates for convenience.

 

[n4l]

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.

But that's why i said, nadal beating fed, in fed's prime, on fed's best surface, at a final, was so ridiculous and makes a huge difference when everything else kinds of evens itself out (grand slams etc). He then followed that up, beating Fed again @ Aussie final the next year.

So his first 2, non-clay championships, came against an all time great player (#2 imo), in his prime. Unbelievable achievement, especially when, like i said, he completely obliterates Fed (and djoker) on clay. Complete annihilation.

This is why when those things happened, i was praying for fed to end up accumulating more grand slams because if they were even in slams, it'd be hard to argue against Nadal.

We've never seen a clay player be able to adjust to grass/hard court like that. Ever. You can argue bjorg, but his competition was connors and mcenroe, who are great players, yes, but clearly a tier lower than fed. And as we all know, it is much easier to adjust hard court <-> grass.

 

[Adriano@10]

But that's why i said, nadal beating fed, in fed's prime, on fed's best surface, at a final, was so ridiculous and makes a huge difference when everything else kinds of evens itself out (grand slams etc). He then followed that up, beating Fed again @ Aussie final the next year.

So his first 2, non-clay championships, came against an all time great player (#2 imo), in his prime. Unbelievable achievement, especially when, like i said, he completely obliterates Fed (and djoker) on clay. Complete annihilation.

This is why when those things happened, i was praying for fed to end up accumulating more grand slams because if they were even in slams, it'd be hard to argue against Nadal.

We've never seen a clay player be able to adjust to grass/hard court like that. Ever. You can argue bjorg, but his competition was connors and mcenroe, who are great players, yes, but clearly a tier lower than fed. And as we all know, it is much easier to adjust hard court <-> grass.

Agree and i see your point but then again take away Rafas clay titles and his record looks a lot weaker than rogers when you take away his grass titles...
Anyways there are arguments both ways as roger still holds the record of being ranked number 1 for the longest time. But as you said it s probably comming down to who retires with more grand slams.

Also i m kid of ok with either of em being called goat as long as it s not djoko i m good.

 

[brehme1989]

Also i m kid of ok with either of em being called goat as long as it s not djoko i m good.

Why the Djokovic hate? Did he steal your precious rivalry by snooping in?

 

[Adriano@10]

Why the Djokovic hate? Did he steal your precious rivalry by snooping in?

Not sure why but the dude just comes across like an absolute prick......

Might just be me...

 

[Wings]

All good points mentioned by brehme and n4l. Can't overlook Nadal's record against Federer, especially Federer's inability to beat Nadal at RG. Surprised that no one has mentioned Nadal's Olympic gold in singles, which should definitely be considered imo.

On the other hand, I think Nadal's lack of an ATP Finals title is a significant hole. Djokovic holding all four slams at once is also big in my book.

Moving aside from titles, it feels like Nadal didn't have a period of domination like Federer or Djokovic have had.

I like Federer the most, but I think by the end Djokovic will have the strongest argument to be GOAT.

 

[K.I.]

I meant overall, not necessarily a given season.

For example that falls into Federer's prime.
2010-2015 would be Djokovic peak, but he still is in his prime.
Nadal is a super freak, he's been at the top since forever and has no clear prime.
I just think it makes the picture more clear if you spread the comparisons over certain time frames. 2005 and 2015 are random dates for convenience.

Prob 1998 - 2008ish was better overall since a lot of players on tour played at a high level. 2008 - till now the domination from the big 3 with the some of the best games ever played between each other with Murray also in the mix.

 

[brehme1989]

Prob 1998 - 2008ish was better overall since a lot of players on tour played at a high level. 2008 - till now the domination from the big 3 with the some of the best games ever played between each other with Murray also in the mix.

The GOAT discussion suggests that these three are, well, the greatest ever, not that their competition is lackluster and that inflated their Grand Slam wins.

So you have to adjust this and pick a side. Both could be valid at the same time, but it raises eyebrows.

- - - Updated - - -

I like Federer the most, but I think by the end Djokovic will have the strongest argument to be GOAT.

That's my position as well.

Initially I didn't like Federer. Saw him live in Switzerland when he was 18 and wasn't impressed by his attitude. He also lost. I was a bit surprised when I saw him 2 years later, he felt much more mature. Ever since I've been a fan.

On the other hand I was always a fan of Djokovic since I first saw him at 18.

With Nadal it's sketchy as I had grown to like Federer by the time he emerged so it wasn't easy to appreciate him. I do appreciate him for several years now of course, but still don't "like" him as a player.

 

[Javier'sSon]

Novak is the Villain to the soft tennis fans aka Fed's and Nadal's fans, and he thrives on it (came in and ruined the party). And I freaking love it. He may not be as elegant or explosive as the two but he is the toughest to beat imo, physically and mentally.

 

[n4l]

djoker will never be #1 in my books. Glorified Martina Hingis.

 

[K.I.]

The GOAT discussion suggests that these three are, well, the greatest ever, not that their competition is lackluster and that inflated their Grand Slam wins.

So you have to adjust this and pick a side. Both could be valid at the same time, but it raises eyebrows.

- - - Updated - - -



That's my position as well.

Initially I didn't like Federer. Saw him live in Switzerland when he was 18 and wasn't impressed by his attitude. He also lost. I was a bit surprised when I saw him 2 years later, he felt much more mature. Ever since I've been a fan.

On the other hand I was always a fan of Djokovic since I first saw him at 18.

With Nadal it's sketchy as I had grown to like Federer by the time he emerged so it wasn't easy to appreciate him. I do appreciate him for several years now of course, but still don't "like" him as a player.

Never said lackluster but there were more than 4 players that at the time had it in them to compete for titles. Also if there are 4 out of 6 - 10 players that make the semi finals and play each other thats still high competition amongst themselves regardless how the rest of the tour looks.

 

[brehme1989]

Never said lackluster but there were more than 4 players that at the time had it in them to compete for titles. Also if there are 4 out of 6 - 10 players that make the semi finals and play each other thats still high competition amongst themselves regardless how the rest of the tour looks.

Note that 1998-2008 includes only briefly Pete Sampras.

The other top players were Andre Agassi and then you had guys like Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt,

I think the 1978-1988 period also features what you've said and it includes players that are still considered top 10 of all time (Borg, Lendl, Becker, Wilander, Connors, McEnroe). You don't see the same prestige carried by guys like Safin, Kuerten, Hewitt, Moya, Roddick, Ferrero, Davydenko etc. Of course, they didn't win that much or anything which is an unfair comparison with the previous generation, but this is what matters at the end of the day. Sampras and Agassi are still the only names that most fans recognize, but going further you'll have at least 4-5 of these legends on a fan's lip.

I think we've had a mini crisis in the mid 2010s but the new talent now seems superb and ready to carry the torch. Assuming the old guard is going to let go.

If 3-4 players are far too dominant to let anyone else win, it defeats the purpose of this discussion. There wasn't even one guy that was too dominant in the time frame you're talking about until Federer came along and then Nadal rained on his parade.

 

[K.I.]

Note that 1998-2008 includes only briefly Pete Sampras.

The other top players were Andre Agassi and then you had guys like Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt,

I think the 1978-1988 period also features what you've said and it includes players that are still considered top 10 of all time (Borg, Lendl, Becker, Wilander, Connors, McEnroe). You don't see the same prestige carried by guys like Safin, Kuerten, Hewitt, Moya, Roddick, Ferrero, Davydenko etc. Of course, they didn't win that much or anything which is an unfair comparison with the previous generation, but this is what matters at the end of the day. Sampras and Agassi are still the only names that most fans recognize, but going further you'll have at least 4-5 of these legends on a fan's lip.

I think we've had a mini crisis in the mid 2010s but the new talent now seems superb and ready to carry the torch. Assuming the old guard is going to let go.

If 3-4 players are far too dominant to let anyone else win, it defeats the purpose of this discussion. There wasn't even one guy that was too dominant in the time frame you're talking about until Federer came along and then Nadal rained on his parade.

I prob watched Agassi and Sampras before they retired dont remember the time frame or the final matches though. I do remember Rafter Sampras final and the Ivanesivic Rafter final. Dont really know much before 98 TBH wasnt following much then.

You can add Rafter to that list but yah ur right Federer did dominate 04-08 but like i said the time frame i mentioned i remember more players that had a better chance of winning a grand slam tittle. There are prob players i dont recall that prob reached semis as well that did good but never enough to reach a final.

The fact that Federer won that much during that period shows u how good he was as well. Specially Roddick and Safin were 2 i thought would win more than they did.

 

[brehme1989]

Lorenzo Sonego destroyed Novak Djovokic in Wien. 6-2, 6-1

Thiem also lost to Rublev 2-0, but looked to be injured in the 2nd set and lost 6-1.

Dimitrov vs Evans next for the Sonego matchup, the other semi final is Anderson vs Rublev. Been a while since Anderson was relevant. Would like to see a Dimitrov vs Anderson final here.

 

[K.I.]

Really happy Thiem won a GS this year, dude looked recked though, seemed more tired than usual in RG.

Agreed on the final call, would be nice for either to win a tittle.

 

[brehme1989]

It's just a 500 series so it's not that big of a deal, but obviously it's still a title. None of these guys are on their way to London though so it doesn't have any bearing on that. Not sure what happens if the winner of this one also wins the 1000 Paris tournament.

Apart from Rublev I mean, who's already on route to London being #7 this year, he's probably locking his position with this SF appearance.

 

[brehme1989]

Nadal has to beat Tsitsipas in order to advance and try to win his first ever ATP Finals.

Tsitsipas on the other hand has to beat Nadal in order to advance and defend his title.

I missed Nadal's game vs Thiem but looking at the score, it probably was a great one.

The other group is still wide open, but I suspect Djokovic will win all three games.

 

[brehme1989]

Thiem vs Dkokovic game is brilliant! Anyone watching?

Thiem just won 2-1 in the tie break.

Let's see if Nadal will finally win this thing.

 

[Wings]

Thiem vs Dkokovic game is brilliant! Anyone watching?

Thiem just won 2-1 in the tie break.

Let's see if Nadal will finally win this thing.

Thiem's ability to make such massive shots at the big moments was tremendous, both against Djokovic and Nadal. Shame about him losing in the final.