Tennis

[Windhook]

I find the GOAT 3 discussion timeless. All three beat each other on different surfaces. If tennis was played solely on hard surface, then I'd have a definite opinion.

My personal pick is Roger Federer, he seemed the complete package and was 5 and 6 years older than the other two.

 

[KingLeo10]

Of course when you win 24 GS that a good chunk is won late in your career due to poor new gen rivals, but that's because Nadal couldn't last as long to challenge Djokovic. Tied to longevity really.

Just imagine Djokovic did not have Nadal as rival at all or viceversa. Each of them reach 28-30 majors for sure.

Nadal peaked much earlier than Djokovic and his peak was actually in a time where Federer was winning everything in sight. Nadal and Federer played FO and Wimbledon finals in 06, 07, and 08 consecutively. Nadal took him to 5 in Wimbledon 07 and then beat him in 08. Djokovic did trouble Federer in those years but not like Nadal. Not even close.

By the time Nadal was ~ 29-30 (2015ish), he had 14 GS and had won on all surfaces.

By the time Djokovic was that age, he had 10 GS (edited to be more fair and include 2015). He hadn't won on all surfaces

Djokovic had the longer longevity but a lot of that is timing. As soon as Sinner and Alcaraz got to elite levels, he's not winning everything in sight anymore. He feasted on the likes of Tsitsipas, Berretini, Kevin Anderson, and Kygrios in finals lol.

I don't know how you could argue that the period from 05-15ish where Nadal won 14 of his GS was not the toughest era of tennis....

My original point was that Nadal's heights during that time frame when the level of tennis was the highest deserve a special mention.

And that Djokovic isn't the runway best/number 1 if you look at context and not just 24 GS and weeks at #1.

 

[serghei]

Nadal peaked much earlier than Djokovic and his peak was actually in a time where Federer was winning everything in sight. Nadal and Federer played FO and Wimbledon finals in 06, 07, and 08 consecutively. Nadal took him to 5 in Wimbledon 07 and then beat him in 08. Djokovic did trouble Federer in those years but not like Nadal. Not even close.

By the time Nadal was ~ 29-30 (2015ish), he had 14 GS and had won on all surfaces.

By the time Djokovic was that age, he had 10 GS (edited to be more fair and include 2015). He hadn't won on all surfaces

Djokovic had the longer longevity but a lot of that is timing. As soon as Sinner and Alcaraz got to elite levels, he's not winning everything in sight anymore. He feasted on the likes of Tsitsipas, Berretini, Kevin Anderson, and Kygrios in finals lol.

I don't know how you could argue that the period from 05-15ish where Nadal won 14 of his GS was not the toughest era of tennis....

My original point was that Nadal's heights during that time frame when the level of tennis was the highest deserve a special mention.

And that Djokovic isn't the runway best/number 1 if you look at context and not just 24 GS and weeks at #1.

Nah, Nadal is not as good as Djokovic on anything but clay.

And about Sinner and Alcaraz, these are not a match for prime Djokovic. The age difference is huge.

The problem of Nadal since 2010 or so outside clay is Djokovic. Nadal in 2011 is peak, his only 3 majors year is 2010 I think. You can't tell me Nadal at 25 years old is not in his peak, that's like perfect age for a tennis player.

He didn't peak much earlier than Djokovic at all. He has won more at early age on clay, but that's not his peak.

 

[Catta]

Federer > Nadal > Djokovic

Always was and always will be.

 

[KingLeo10]

Nah, Nadal is not as good as Djokovic on anything but clay.

And about Sinner and Alcaraz, these are not a match for prime Djokovic. The age difference is huge.

The problem of Nadal since 2010 or so outside clay is Djokovic. Nadal in 2011 is peak, his only 3 majors year is 2010 I think. You can't tell me Nadal at 25 years old is not in his peak, that's like perfect age for a tennis player.

He didn't peak much earlier than Djokovic at all.

I'm trying to be reasonable and you're honestly turning into a bit of a clown on this topic, I'm afraid.

I already conceded and extended the window of from 05 to 15 to make it more fair (my initial point of 08 to 10 was because this period covered prime to slightly past prime Federer and slightly before prime Djokovic. Every other time frame has either a declined Fed or not prime Djokovic).

But 05 to 15 - 30 is a fair age for the end of a player's peak, which is what Nadal was in 2015. Djokovic was 29 or so?

Nadal before 30 had 14 GS, 10 of them won against Federer and Djokovic lol.

Djokovic around that age had 10 GS, with not as many won against Federer and Nadal.

Djokovic lasted longer and was better in his 30s to the other two but Nadal faced superior competition and was superior at a younger age.

Djokovic does get a lot of points for maintaining a high level in his 30s - to your point about Alcaraz and Sinner being unfair metrics for post prime Djokovic. That is my point - if we didn't have duds from 2018 to 2022ish, he wouldn't have so many majors.

Nadal would have less too, but he didn't feast nearly as bad from 2018 to 2022 as Djokovic did.

 

[serghei]

It's probably Djokovic > Federer > Nadal.

 

[KingLeo10]

Maybe if Djokovic continues to be beat down by elite competition instead of feasting on duds, serghei will have his 2022 WC moment on tennis

 

[serghei]

I'm trying to be reasonable and you're honestly turning into a bit of a clown on this topic, I'm afraid.

I already conceded and extended the window of from 05 to 15 to make it more fair (my initial point of 08 to 10 was because this period covered prime to slightly past prime Federer and slightly before prime Djokovic).

But 05 to 15 - 30 is a fair age for the end of a player's peak, which is what Nadal was in 2015. Djokovic was 29 or so?

Nadal before 30 had 14 GS, 10 of them won against Federer and Djokovic lol.

Djokovic around that age had 10 GS, with not as many won against Federer and Nadal.

Djokovic lasted longer but Nadal faced superior competition and was superior at a younger age.

Djokovic does get a lot of points for maintaining a high level in his 30s - to your point about Alcaraz and Sinner being unfair metrics for post prime Djokovic. That is my point - if we didn't have duds from 2018 to 2022ish, he wouldn't have so many majors.

Nadal would have less too, but he didn't feast nearly as bad from 2018 to 2022 as Djokovic did.

You make no sense tbh.

But I give you that. Nadal before 30 is better than Djokovic before 30. Overall, Djokovic is just better, because he kept playing better for longer.

It's Nadal's fault that he couldn't play top tennis into his 30s at the level of Djokovic. He played a more physical tennis and his body deteriorated faster as a result. It's all for a reason.

 

[KingLeo10]

You make no sense tbh.

But I give you that. Nadal before 30 is better than Djokovic before 30. Overall, Djokovic is just better, because he kept playing better for longer.

It's Nadal's fault that he couldn't play top tennis into his 30s at the level of Djokovic. He played a more physical tennis and his body deteriorated faster as a result.

Have you heard of the concept of weighted averages?

"He kept playing better for longer" is a simplistic take. You need to take into account when the achievements were made.

For example, if Alcaraz goes on to win 30 GS, I don't think he is runway GOAT unless he does so competing against other all time greats. If it's a barren field, who cares if he wins 30 GS and racks them up in his late 30s or something.

 

[Catta]

Nadal is like Suarez, and Djokovic is like Lewa.

One was scoring ton and winning golden boots against the goats, while the other farmed in a one horse league and won majority of his awards after the goats declined.

Same way for Rafa and Novak, while Nadal battled against the goat, the other was not even worth mentioning in the same sentence. As soon as the decline started for Nadal and Federer, Djokovic started racking up titles.

 

[serghei]

Have you heard of the concept of weighted averages?

"He kept playing better for longer" is a simplistic take. You need to take into account when the achievements were made.

For example, if Alcaraz goes on to win 30 GS, I don't think he is runway GOAT unless he does so competing against other all time greats. If it's a barren field, who cares if he wins 30 GS and racks them up in his late 30s or something.

That's a poor comparison. Nadal is born in 86 and Djokovic in 87. Same gen, under a year between them. You can't just ignore that because Nadal didn't last as long as Djokovic did. That's on him.

Besides, I don't know what you are trying to prove here, Djokovic dominated Nadal badly on HC. 20 - 7 h2h. Quite clear he has been a better player than Nadal on most surfaces.

 

[KingLeo10]

That's a poor comparison. Nadal is born in 86 and Djokovic in 87. Same gen. You can't just ignore that because Nadal didn't last as long as Djokovic did. That's on him.

Dude, are you dense or just playing dense?

Given they're that close in age, you need to ask yourself: Why did Djokovic have only 1 GS by 2010, when Nadal had 9 by 2010 (6 of these won v Federer).

Do you not realize how tough it was to beat Federer in that era? Where Djokovic did nothing but play third fiddle?

You're propping up Djokovic's longevity versus duds while I'm pointing out Nadal achieving big things against premium competition at a younger age. Not hard to see which one weighs more

 

[KingLeo10]

I actually used to think Nadal >= Federer >= Djokvovic

but after seeing what Alcaraz (discount prime Federer) can do to Djokovic, I'd have it

Federer >= Nadal > Djokovic

 

[serghei]

Given they're that close in age, you need to ask yourself: Why did Djokovic have only 1 GS by 2010, when Nadal had 9 by 2010 (6 of these won v Federer).

Do you not realize how tough it was to beat Federer in that era? Where Djokovic did nothing but play third fiddle?

Because Djokovic had a more classical career path. Nadal was a prodigy on clay. That's the only difference.

 

[Maradona37]

Not a real tennis fan, but based on what I have been told and seen on the odd occasion, surely Federer gets bonus points for the aesthetic beauty and 'net play' of his game? Like Messi does over C Ronaldo rather than just counting up stats and Grand Slams.

Is that part of why Federer is seen as the best by so many despite Djokovic winning more on paper? It's because entertainment matters.