Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Hi! I'm 30 years old, and I've been following tennis for a decade and a half now. I'm a huge Djokovic fan. Sometimes, during his matches, I just have to take a walk/break because I can't handle the tension and my heart pounding. This also happened during the third set of the RG 2020 final when I got my hopes high, but the King of Clay prevailed. I would like to congratulate Nadal and his fans for the victory. "Amazing" is not good enough of a superlative to describe this achievement of 13 RG titles, stacking up to 20 slams. Admittedly, I underestimated Nadal - once again; honestly thought Djokovic would win this time based on the tennis I've seen during 2020 outside of clay. However, clay is clay, and I have finally learned you can never underestimate Nadal on clay (especially on RG), no matter the form of Djokovic or any other player outside clay. It's a different game.

Well-known stats:
Grand Slams: Federer & Nadal 20 > Djokovic 17
ATP Finals: Federer 6 > Djokovic 5 > Nadal 0
Masters 1000: Djokovic 36 > Nadal 35 > Federer 28
*Djokovic total "big titles": 58 (out of 81 titles overall)
*Nadal total "big titles": 56 (out of 86 titles overall, including Olympic Gold)
*Federer total "big titles": 54 (out of 103 titles overall)

Weeks ranked no1:
Federer 310 > Djokovic 290 > Nadal 209
Year-end no1:
Djokovic & Federer & Nadal = 5 years each
H2H:
Djokovic - Nadal: 29-27
Djokovic - Federer: 27-23
Nadal - Federer: 24-16
Highest level achieved: subjective

Since I'm a Djokovic fan, I would like to point out some of his achievements which stand out in my eyes:
2011: 43 matches win streak
2015/2016: Won Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open and (finally) French Open. Four in a row.
2015: 31-5 W/L record against top 10 players, a season in which he defeated all of the other top 10 players
2016: Ranking points record (16 790 pts)
2019: Only player to win all nine Masters 1000s (Golden masters)
2020: Only player to win all nine Masters 1000s twice (Second Golden Masters)

For simplicity, let's assume the GOAT debate only included the "Big 3". Not trying to offend anyone, but usually when these discussions come along, the majority will vote for either one of the abovementioned players.

I honestly think that the question of the GOAT, is a question without an answer. When you look at the big picture, how can you actually claim that one is better than the other? There are so many factors to concider when comparing the three (including Grand Slam tally); look aside from the numbers for a second:

  • age difference between the three (it is what it is)
  • opposition (it was what it was, it is what it is)
  • injuries and time off tennis, but also the timing/stage in career this happened (one could definately argue that Nadal has been the most unfortunate in this regard, but at the same time, his style of play is probably an essential reason for this - would he had been as sucessfull without this style of play which in fact has led him to great sucess?)
  • surface distribution (for example, it's not as if Nadal would have 0 ATP Finals had it been played on clay, it's a clear advantage for Djokovic and Federer. However, it is what it is.)
I made this post out of resepct for all of the "Big 3", and their loyal fans, not to start a discussion of whether Djokovic, Federer or Nadal is the GOAT. GOAT is a question without an impartial answer, it's a bowl of similar (looking at the big picture), amazing records and subjective thoughts. In my mind, Djokovic is the best, I will however never be able to provide an impartial arguement to "prove" this, nor do I feel the need to. He will though, forever be my favorite.

Having said all of this, it is nerve wreckingly exciting following the “Grand slam race” :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
All 3 Of Them Are Legends Of Our Sport
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkoAqua

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Common sense is not much popular these days on this forum, particularly not while euphoria is skyrocketing our planet's atmosphere.

But, your post is made of pure wisdom, a true respectable fellow fan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,375 Posts
Collective GOAT achievements:

270 Titles:

15x Australian Opens,
15x French Opens,
15x Wimbledons,
12x US Opens,
99x Masters,
11x WTFs
1x OG,
59x ATP 500s,
43x ATP 250s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdon and DarkoAqua

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,315 Posts
Hi! I'm 30 years old, and I've been following tennis for a decade and a half now. I'm a huge Djokovic fan. Sometimes, during his matches, I just have to take a walk/break because I can't handle the tension and my heart pounding. This also happened during the third set of the RG 2020 final when I got my hopes high, but the King of Clay prevailed. I would like to congratulate Nadal and his fans for the victory. "Amazing" is not good enough of a superlative to describe this achievement of 13 RG titles, stacking up to 20 slams. Admittedly, I underestimated Nadal - once again; honestly thought Djokovic would win this time based on the tennis I've seen during 2020 outside of clay. However, clay is clay, and I have finally learned you can never underestimate Nadal on clay (especially on RG), no matter the form of Djokovic or any other player outside clay. It's a different game.

Well-known stats:
Grand Slams: Federer & Nadal 20 > Djokovic 17
ATP Finals: Federer 6 > Djokovic 5 > Nadal 0
Masters 1000: Djokovic 36 > Nadal 35 > Federer 28
*Djokovic total "big titles": 58 (out of 81 titles overall)
*Nadal total "big titles": 56 (out of 86 titles overall, including Olympic Gold)
*Federer total "big titles": 54 (out of 103 titles overall)

Weeks ranked no1:
Federer 310 > Djokovic 290 > Nadal 209
Year-end no1:
Djokovic & Federer & Nadal = 5 years each
H2H:
Djokovic - Nadal: 29-27
Djokovic - Federer: 27-23
Nadal - Federer: 24-16
Highest level achieved: subjective

Since I'm a Djokovic fan, I would like to point out some of his achievements which stand out in my eyes:
2011: 43 matches win streak
2015/2016: Won Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open and (finally) French Open. Four in a row.
2015: 31-5 W/L record against top 10 players, a season in which he defeated all of the other top 10 players
2016: Ranking points record (16 790 pts)
2019: Only player to win all nine Masters 1000s (Golden masters)
2020: Only player to win all nine Masters 1000s twice (Second Golden Masters)

For simplicity, let's assume the GOAT debate only included the "Big 3". Not trying to offend anyone, but usually when these discussions come along, the majority will vote for either one of the abovementioned players.

I honestly think that the question of the GOAT, is a question without an answer. When you look at the big picture, how can you actually claim that one is better than the other? There are so many factors to concider when comparing the three (including Grand Slam tally); look aside from the numbers for a second:

  • age difference between the three (it is what it is)
  • opposition (it was what it was, it is what it is)
  • injuries and time off tennis, but also the timing/stage in career this happened (one could definately argue that Nadal has been the most unfortunate in this regard, but at the same time, his style of play is probably an essential reason for this - would he had been as sucessfull without this style of play which in fact has led him to great sucess?)
  • surface distribution (for example, it's not as if Nadal would have 0 ATP Finals had it been played on clay, it's a clear advantage for Djokovic and Federer. However, it is what it is.)
I made this post out of resepct for all of the "Big 3", and their loyal fans, not to start a discussion of whether Djokovic, Federer or Nadal is the GOAT. GOAT is a question without an impartial answer, it's a bowl of similar (looking at the big picture), amazing records and subjective thoughts. In my mind, Djokovic is the best, I will however never be able to provide an impartial arguement to "prove" this, nor do I feel the need to. He will though, forever be my favorite.

Having said all of this, it is nerve wreckingly exciting following the “Grand slam race” :)
I's bullshit!!! Halep was many weeks on # 1 but she really is goat??? NO! Absolutely no! Serena also not gaot really!
# 1 is nothing for Goat's status!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,315 Posts
Hi! I'm 30 years old, and I've been following tennis for a decade and a half now. I'm a huge Djokovic fan. Sometimes, during his matches, I just have to take a walk/break because I can't handle the tension and my heart pounding. This also happened during the third set of the RG 2020 final when I got my hopes high, but the King of Clay prevailed. I would like to congratulate Nadal and his fans for the victory. "Amazing" is not good enough of a superlative to describe this achievement of 13 RG titles, stacking up to 20 slams. Admittedly, I underestimated Nadal - once again; honestly thought Djokovic would win this time based on the tennis I've seen during 2020 outside of clay. However, clay is clay, and I have finally learned you can never underestimate Nadal on clay (especially on RG), no matter the form of Djokovic or any other player outside clay. It's a different game.

Well-known stats:
Grand Slams: Federer & Nadal 20 > Djokovic 17
ATP Finals: Federer 6 > Djokovic 5 > Nadal 0
Masters 1000: Djokovic 36 > Nadal 35 > Federer 28
*Djokovic total "big titles": 58 (out of 81 titles overall)
*Nadal total "big titles": 56 (out of 86 titles overall, including Olympic Gold)
*Federer total "big titles": 54 (out of 103 titles overall)

Weeks ranked no1:
Federer 310 > Djokovic 290 > Nadal 209
Year-end no1:
Djokovic & Federer & Nadal = 5 years each
H2H:
Djokovic - Nadal: 29-27
Djokovic - Federer: 27-23
Nadal - Federer: 24-16
Highest level achieved: subjective

Since I'm a Djokovic fan, I would like to point out some of his achievements which stand out in my eyes:
2011: 43 matches win streak
2015/2016: Won Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open and (finally) French Open. Four in a row.
2015: 31-5 W/L record against top 10 players, a season in which he defeated all of the other top 10 players
2016: Ranking points record (16 790 pts)
2019: Only player to win all nine Masters 1000s (Golden masters)
2020: Only player to win all nine Masters 1000s twice (Second Golden Masters)

For simplicity, let's assume the GOAT debate only included the "Big 3". Not trying to offend anyone, but usually when these discussions come along, the majority will vote for either one of the abovementioned players.

I honestly think that the question of the GOAT, is a question without an answer. When you look at the big picture, how can you actually claim that one is better than the other? There are so many factors to concider when comparing the three (including Grand Slam tally); look aside from the numbers for a second:

  • age difference between the three (it is what it is)
  • opposition (it was what it was, it is what it is)
  • injuries and time off tennis, but also the timing/stage in career this happened (one could definately argue that Nadal has been the most unfortunate in this regard, but at the same time, his style of play is probably an essential reason for this - would he had been as sucessfull without this style of play which in fact has led him to great sucess?)
  • surface distribution (for example, it's not as if Nadal would have 0 ATP Finals had it been played on clay, it's a clear advantage for Djokovic and Federer. However, it is what it is.)
I made this post out of resepct for all of the "Big 3", and their loyal fans, not to start a discussion of whether Djokovic, Federer or Nadal is the GOAT. GOAT is a question without an impartial answer, it's a bowl of similar (looking at the big picture), amazing records and subjective thoughts. In my mind, Djokovic is the best, I will however never be able to provide an impartial arguement to "prove" this, nor do I feel the need to. He will though, forever be my favorite.

Having said all of this, it is nerve wreckingly exciting following the “Grand slam race” :)
Goat is player wich have great H2H against ALL opponents on tour! We have one? May be Novak?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
surface distribution (for example, it's not as if Nadal would have 0 ATP Finals had it been played on clay, it's a clear advantage for Djokovic and Federer. However, it is what it is.)
Doesn't make sense at all. I has been that way for decades. It's not that Nadal entered the tour and the evil ATP to screw him over changed the surface from clay to hard. It's been for a few decades now that hard court tennis dominates the tour and I assume only Nadal fans can have problem with it. It is the most neutral surface where variety of styles can have success. No one forced Nadal to develop a clay dependent style knowing that majority of big tournaments are contested on other surface. The upside is he wins almost everything on clay but the downside is that he is nowhere near the greatness of Djokovic and Federer on any other surface.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkoAqua

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
Fed is GOAT. i have proof: bageling Rafa on clay and bageling Nole on hard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
How so? Variety of styles?
Have you counted how many different players won hard court slams compared to clay and grass?
In the big 3 era? Starting from 2003 Wimbledon
Clay: Nadal 13, Gaston Gaudio 1, Roger Federer 1, Stan Wawrinka 1, Novak Djokovic 1
Grass: Federer 8, Djokovic 5, Murray 2, Nadal 2
Hard: Djokovic 11, Federer 11, Nadal 5, Wawrinka 2, Murray 1, Safin 1, Del Potro 1, Cilic 1, Roddick 1, Thiem 1

Anyway, vast majority of all-time greats struggled to win a major either on grass or clay. Many couldn't win even 1. Most players have the lowest win percentage either on grass or clay. But yeah, clay is the surface which doesn't favor certain type of tennis. Most neutral one, right? The terms like a dirtballer, clay-court specialist were just coined for fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkoAqua

·
Registered
Joined
·
755 Posts
Doesn't make sense at all. I has been that way for decades. It's not that Nadal entered the tour and the evil ATP to screw him over changed the surface from clay to hard. It's been for a few decades now that hard court tennis dominates the tour and I assume only Nadal fans can have problem with it. It is the most neutral surface where variety of styles can have success. No one forced Nadal to develop a clay dependent style knowing that majority of big tournaments are contested on other surface. The upside is he wins almost everything on clay but the downside is that he is nowhere near the greatness of Djokovic and Federer on any other surface.

I admit that this "argument" has always amused me. :)
I thought the "basics" were built in but obviously no.


The Masters (1970) is almost as old as the Open era (1968).

It therefore has, needless to say, a prestige and an indisputable status without comparison with the "masters 1000"

Different formulas have been tested.
In the beginning; championship formula (6 players), 3 editions with direct elimination (12 with bye TS or 16 players) around mid 80's, but in the end it was the 2 group formula (8 players) that prevailed and is the specificity of the Masters, the concept of group management has its part.


It has been itinerant, but overall it is 2 resident stadiums that made its legend, Madison Square Garden in NY, and the O2 in London.

Given the time of the season, the indoor was logically chosen, with 3 exceptions, on grass in Australia in 74 when the Masters had to encourage the best to play the OA some time later, then neglected. Vilas thanks.

And more recently 2 Houston hard outdoor editions.

The traditional status (indoor, carpet then hard) has never been contested for more than 35 years.
It is only since Nadal and rafans fad conveyed on the forums that it speaks of "injustice" and rotating surface.
Which is, let's face it, the essence of "tardism excellence"


Indoor carpet has never prevented clay players like Orantès, Corretja or Kuerten from winning, or even of course the great Borg, twice in a row, yet against indoor specialists like Connors, McEnroe and Lendl.
Remember also that the 1998 final is the same as that of RG .. Corretja vs Moya ..

It is really giving Nadal very little talent to want to put clay under his feet to win the Masters, and it is even more mean to denigrate the Masters because he is missing from his record: -)

The victories of Dimitrov, Zverev and Tsitsipas are not scandalous, and are the fruit of the context of these seasons (and their punctual form), as are the victories of Corretja, Nalbandian or Davydenko in their time.
The Masters is not a club reserved for slam winners but recognizes the 8 best players of the season.


On the other hand, there is no doubt that the leaders of the event are not impostors .. Federer 6, followed by Lendl, Sampras and Djokovic 5 ..

The only YE1s who have not won the title are to date; Wilander, Courier and therefore Nadal and in the 3 cases, it is neither an injustice, nor an anomaly, it is just a fact, like the absence of Borg in the US Open charts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,885 Posts
In the big 3 era? Starting from 2003 Wimbledon
Clay: Nadal 13, Gaston Gaudio 1, Roger Federer 1, Stan Wawrinka 1, Novak Djokovic 1
Grass: Federer 8, Djokovic 5, Murray 2, Nadal 2
Hard: Djokovic 11, Federer 11, Nadal 5, Wawrinka 2, Murray 1, Safin 1, Del Potro 1, Cilic 1, Roddick 1, Thiem 1

Anyway, vast majority of all-time greats struggled to win a major either on grass or clay. Many couldn't win even 1. Most players have the lowest win percentage either on grass or clay. But yeah, clay is the surface which doesn't favor certain type of tennis. Most neutral one, right? The terms like a dirtballer, clay-court specialist were just coined for fun.
I stop reading at "In the big 3 era".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
I stop reading at "In the big 3 era".
Look, dude. I'm not going to spend time making a long list just to prove something to someone who I suspect of tardism. If you need a prove that hard is the most neutral of all surfaces, then, I consider your knowledge of tennis as poor. In the 1990s pushers and grinders excelled at RG while serve & volley had great success on grass. On hard both baseliners and net rushers could succeed. Hard is not completely neutral and hardcore clay specialists often struggle on it but it's still easier for them than on grass. Believe in what you choose to believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,885 Posts
Look, dude. I'm not going to spend time making a long list just to prove something to someone who I suspect of tardism. If you need a prove that hard is the most neutral of all surfaces, then, I consider your knowledge of tennis as poor. In the 1990s pushers and grinders excelled at RG while serve & volley had great success on grass. On hard both baseliners and net rushers could succeed. Hard is not completely neutral and hardcore clay specialists often struggle on it but it's still easier for them than on grass. Believe in what you choose to believe.
I take that as you cannot back up your claim with simply numbers.
So continue your hand waving arguments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
I take that as you cannot back up your claim with simply numbers.
So continue your hand waving arguments.
Sorry, but I don't waste my time trying to prove something to someone I don't consider worthy of discussion. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with the likes of @Bakano, @NADALalot and you. I respect my time. Choose to believe what you want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,885 Posts
Sorry, but I don't waste my time trying to prove something to someone I don't consider worthy of discussion. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with the likes of @Bakano, @NADALalot and you. I respect my time. Choose to believe what you want.
I mean, people like you claim "hard court is neutral and allows variety of styles to succeed".
I ask if you have statistics to back it up. I believe those data will be appreciated by many.

Then you made a very pitiful attempt to only use big 3 era data, which is totally unreasonable.
I pointed it out, and you got mad and calling me tard or something.

Sure, suit yourself.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top