still Federer in my eyes, Djokovic amassed plexi cushion AO titles in a period of time over the last few years when the competition has just been dire. I dare anyone to give a serious argument of why the HC competition has been tougher from 14-16 than it was for Federer from like 2005-2007. Its just nonsense. And, sorry, but you can't strictly use numbers to debate things because there are other incredibly important factors. Federer would have won any Australian Open final EVER if he had to face Murray in them and they were contemporaries in terms of age
Agreed. Novak is a plexcushion specialist, slow hard court GOAT. But not overall hard court GOAT because unlike Fed, he's not as good on fast hard as Fed is on slow hard.
There is a reason why he is 2-4 in USO finals against other members of the Big 4. The years he won (2011 and 15) were the best years of his career in which he won 3 slams. So if he is even slightly off his game he's not good enough to defeat the other in the Big 4 on FAST hard. How can you be the HC GOAT with such a bad record in finals at the USO during the prime years of your career?
Federer has zero USO since 2008.
Federer has one AO title in nearly 10 years.
Federer is a relic of a bygone era. Federer couldn't handle the modern game or the players who emerged from it.
Once the game changed and became really physical and athletic (everyone playing more from the baseline, defense, physical tennis, etc.) and real athletes and tennis players emerged, Federer got exposed hard.
Nadal is the US Open GOAT if he wins this US Open.
He'll have won THREE US OPENS and beaten Djokovic in all THREE of them!
Plus he swept Canada/Cincy/US Open in 2013.
Why are people using "he won many title on plexicushion" as an argument? Is plexi not a HC?
And also does he not play well at USO so you say he can play only on plexi? He made at least the SF at the last 8 US Opens, he is 3-3 at USO with Federer, he made a final and played a competitive match there at the age of 20, losing to Federer in his prime. He is 3-1 at AO vs Fed, so 6-4 vs Roger in HC Slams.
And you use the "competition" factor against Djokovic who beat either Federer, Nadal or Murray in all of his Slam wins, many times 2 of them? He proved he can beat anyone on any surface. And Djokovic is 2-2 with Nadal on HC Slams while Roger is 0-3.
And when nobody can beat Federer in a HC Slam for years, so young 20 y-o has to do it himself, that's called "GOATness", but when nobody can beat Djokovic, that's called weak competition...
But I'm sure you'll find excuses for Roger, he was old, he had mono, bad match-up, plexi, homogenization etc etc.
Novak and Roger are very close as of now, but Djokovic has a nice shot at passing Roger with few more big titles. This USO would be a great place to start. As of now I would still give the edge to Roger.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
87.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!