Tennis

[serghei]

It's almost as if the concept of 2015-onwards weak era is a thing...

Nadal was 29 in 2015. If he became washed up at 29 that's a major dent in his legacy.

Until 30s, Djokovic had 6 AO, 1 FO, 3 wimbledon, 3 USO. 13 slams

Nadal had, 1 AO, 9 FO, 2 wimbledon, 2 USO. 14 slams.

So, even in their expected prime, very close.

 

[Windhook]

These discussions in the last few pages I can sense are political. Djokovic is the GOAT, because he defied COVID rules and is Serbian, whom by default support Russia vs. NATO. Nothing to do with the sport of tennis. Let's not fool ourselves, we all know who's who in this forum.

 

[serghei]

I thought it's because he holds the biggest records, has most important titles, and has positive h2h vs all his main rivals. But yea, he's not as likeable, is not politically correct, so he can't be the best.

 

[Windhook]

I thought it's because he holds the biggest records, has most important titles, and has positive h2h vs all his main rivals.

I wrote yesterday about the age gap, regarding Federer.

Anyway Alcaraz will surpass all of them records. If he can beat Djokovic in his "prime", nothing can stop him in the next 8 years. Nobody will consider Alcaraz as GOAT.

 

[serghei]

I wrote yesterday about the age gap, regarding Federer.

Anyway Alcaraz will surpass all of them records. If he can beat Djokovic in his "prime", nothing can stop him in the next 8 years. Nobody will consider Alcaraz as GOAT.

Yes, but the discussion is about Djokovic vs Nadal, 95% of it at least.

 

[serghei]

Generation matters too of course. Djokovic played over 100 games vs opponents like Federer and Nadal.

If during his career, Alcaraz is gonna face such opponents so often and is gonna beat Djokovic's achievements, he's gonna get the credit most likely.

 

[KingLeo10]

Nadal was 29 in 2015. If he became washed up at 29 that's a major dent in his legacy.

Until 30s, Djokovic had 6 AO, 1 FO, 3 wimbledon, 3 USO. 13 slams

Nadal had, 1 AO, 9 FO, 2 wimbledon, 2 USO. 14 slams.

So, even in their expected prime, very close.

It was 14-12 (check your math) if you include 2016 where Nadal AND Fed played 1/3 of the season

2015 was the last time federer and nadal were close to their prime.

14-10 till 2015.

 

[serghei]

It was 14-12 (check your math) if you include 2016 where Nadal AND Fed played 1/3 of the season

2015 was the last time federer and nadal were close to their prime.

14-10 till 2015.

Of course I include it, injuries in tennis are part of the game.

Djokovic is a year younger. Until 29, so 2016 Djokovic and 2015 Nadal, 14 - 13 for Nadal.

You have a point that Nadal has won more at a very young age. I conceded that.

 

[KingLeo10]

Here's Djokovic GS:

Pre-2011 (Federer and Nadal era)

1 W, 2 L

2011-2015 (Djokovic and Nadal era)

9 W, 6 L

2016-2022 (Duds era)

11 W, 3 L

2022-onwards (Rise of Alcaraz and Sinner)

3 W, 2L

It's clear to me that he absolutely feasted on the weak era. And is GREAT in strong eras, but loses way too much to be any consensus GOAT

 

[serghei]

Pre 2011, Djokovic is 23 years old. Too young. Federer and Djokovic are different generations.

 

[KingLeo10]

Pre 2011, Djokovic is 23 years old. Too young. Federer and Djokovic are different generations.

Nadal had beat Federer on all surface slams (clay, grass, hard) by the time he was 23. And had all grand slams by 25.

And played 7 GS finals from 05-09 versus Federer despite also being from a diff generation.

You refuse to acknowledge how horrible (in GOAT level terms) Djokovic was pre 2011 compared to the other two, when the other two were reigning. He started dominating them more and more from 2011 onwards (Nadal from 2015 onwards) and then feasted on the other duds like I've just broken down.

 

[serghei]

Nadal had beat Federer on all surface slams (clay, grass, hard) by the time he was 23. And had all grand slams by 25.

And played 7 GS finals from 05-09 versus Federer despite also being from a diff generation.

You refuse to acknowledge how horrible (in GOAT level terms) Djokovic was pre 2011 compared to the other two, when the other two were reigning. He started dominating them more and more from 2011 onwards (Nadal from 2015 onwards) and then feasted on the other duds like I've just broken down.

Yes, and I already conceded he is better than Djokovic at an early age. You keep insisting on this.

The problem is Djokovic has been considerably better since 2011. Nadal could keep up mostly by his clay mastery.

You get Nadal off the hook completely for not being able to produce a high enough level since 2011. As said, in 2011 he was fucking 25 years old. That's peak age. He should have handled Djokovic at that age if he was better. He only could do it on clay.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Haven't followed tennis much in the era of three heroes, but wonder why the era of likes of Sampras, Agassi, Becker and alike didn't spark such heated exchanges. Maybe these guys are really all very similar both in styles and records. I peronally like none of them. They all seemed boring to me from the get go. The 90s and early 00s era seemed most watchable. Many interesting players, even if none of them were considered "goats". Loved Ivanisevic smashing his rackets and cursing, Samprass with his uber powerfull flat shots and Agassi with swerwing topspin balls. Even watched some women tennis at the time. Stefi Graf had menacing back hand slice shot she used to terorize her oponents, especially that swiss girl, Hingis. The Federer, Nadal & Joko era seem flat boring and even those players themselves are all the same. Strong shooters without any personality whatsoever. Maybe i just haven't followed enough.

 

[KingLeo10]

Yes, and I already conceded he is better than Djokovic at an early age. You keep insisting on this.

The problem is Djokovic has been considerably better since 2011. Nadal could keep up mostly by his clay mastery.

You get Nadal off the hook completely for not being able to produce a high enough level since 2011. As said, in 2011 he was fucking 25 years old. That's peak age. He should have handled Djokovic at that age if he was better. He only could do it on clay.

Are you retarded?

2 pages ago, we detailed how it was 3-3 in slam finals (and 4-3 in favor of Nadal in GS matches) during 2011-2015. I'd still ever so slightly favor Djokovic because he won on three surfaces as opposed to 2 for Nadal in this time frame.

2016-onwards - is post 30 a prime age for a tennis player too ?Federer won 3 slams post 30 and Sampras 1

Post 30 Nadal won 8 (feasting on weak era) and Djokovic 12-14 (SUPER feasting on weak era).

 

[Maradona37]

Haven't followed tennis much in the era of three heroes, but wonder why the era of likes of Sampras, Agassi, Becker and alike didn't spark such heated exchanges. Maybe these guys are really all very similar both in styles and records. I peronally like none of them. They all seemed boring to me from the get go. The 90s and early 00s era seemed most watchable. Many interesting players, even if none of them were considered "goats". Loved Ivanisevic smashing his rackets and cursing, Samprass with his uber powerfull flat shots and Agassi with swerwing topspin balls. Even watched some women tennis at the time. Stefi Graf had menacing back hand slice shot she used to terorize her oponents, especially that swiss girl, Hingis. The Federer, Nadal & Joko era seem flat boring and even those players themselves are all the same. Strong shooters without any personality whatsoever. Maybe i just haven't followed enough.

Yeah I watched tennis in that era too, loved them players.

To be fair, maybe it's because I was a kid in the 80s and 90s (no idea how old you were) so there's a touch of nostalgia. But I remember players like Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, Agassi, Graf, Seles too. It was a fun era and I kept more up to date with tennis.

Probably just me getting older in the 00s and focusing exclusively on football as a sport.