NFT: Djokovic and the Tennis GOAT race

(I mean, it's almost a lock this summer at the French), but Djokovic will ultimately finish with the most.

Djokovic has always been my favorite of the 3 so I'd like to see him pass both.

I'll always wonder what would have happened if Federer was a few years younger and/or Nadal Djokovic a few years older. Not taking away from Fed at all, but he really got a nice start to his career between the Sampras/Agassi era and the big 3.

the same way Federer had the beginning of the career benefit. There's really no one other than Rafa that can best Djokovic right now (he can lose of course, strictly speaking best day vs best day). He will have those Wawrinka matches here and there but for the most part he's going to be favored in everything but the French. But his style has more staying power than Nadal who's going to break down sooner or later.

because of versatility across surfaces and the number of not only championships, but appearances in Finals and Semifinals.

Even when he wasn't winning, he never seemed to get bounced early. For such a long time, he never had to pull out of tournaments to injury, he wasn't upset early ever. He was the ultimate model of consistency in majors.

I'm also biased because Federer's game was always my favorite to watch.

Nadal on clay is better than any tennis player on any surface and that seems pretty undisputed.

Djokovic might be the most complete of the three, though. He has his antics, he had some "quitter" labels thrust upon him earlier in his career (which I think he attributed to gluten), but when all is said and done, who knows.

I think we've reached the point where a case could be made for any of the three.

and I will always say that watching Federer is about as enjoyable as sports can be with his complete and utter offensive attack as opposed to Nadal and Djokovic, who to varying degrees, are more grinders. It is a long debate and I think I could argue that in his prime Federer would be Djokovic in his prime more often than he would lose to him. I am not sure Federer could make that argument with Nadal because Nadal was his kryptonite. The irony is that later in his career Federer actually figured out Nadal and if he had not been so stubborn about going to the late backhand with a larger racket earlier in his career, I would bet a lot of money Federer would not have lost the 08 Wimbledon and 09 Aussie Open to Nadal (which are huge in this count). Djokovic is six years younger than Federer so their primes never really intersected except in Djokovic's crazy years of 2011 and 2012 when Federer beat him at the French in 11 and Wimby in 12. Another crazy thing is that Federer had three match points against Djokovic in three grand slam matches, The 2010 and 2011 US Open and the 2019 Wimby final and lost all three of those matches. So, although I think Federer was better than Djokovic in his prime, Djokovic is the better money player. And, if he ends up with more grand slams (almost a certainty), its hard to argue Federer over Nadal or Djoker. The one thing is that no major are indoors where Federer was just as unbeatable for a very long time.

Nadal and Djokovic is not really a question in my mind. Djokovic beat Nadal on clay and was a much better all around player. I also think Djokovic leads the all time series 29-27and when you remove clay it is a Djokovic slaughter on all other surfaces.

Nadal only has one Aussie.

Joker only has one French.

Fed only has one French.

If one can say they have the grand slam 2X, they are in the driver's seat, IMV.

how much you want to remove clay. For a long time it just wasn't something that was widely focused on (for Americans especially) so it was always advantage Europe. But since Nadal came along it forced everyone to care about it more and train for it and I think at this point the playing field has been leveled - ie its on you if you aren't going to get better at it.

Highest peak for me is probably Nadal, his speed + defense is just insane.

All around game + longevity is Federer and Djokovic and i'm not ready to pick yet, a few years left atleast on this one (although Djokovic has a chance to blow right past it).

In comment 15159596 bw in dc said:

Quote:

Nadal only has one Aussie. Joker only has one French. Fed only has one French. If one can say they have the grand slam 2X, they are in the driver's seat, IMV.

Djokovic can have 23-25 slams when its all said and done and still have 1 french. This might convince me in a deadlock of the same number of total grand slams but not if one is overwhelmingly ahead.

I didn't get to watch the Aussie Open final but I was very surprised by the result. I thought Medvedev would at least take Djok to 5 sets. I'm not really a Djokovic fan but I respect his game and the complete overhaul he seemed to undertake to go from a perpetual also-ran to quite possibly the GOAT. I love Fed and Rafa but year after year Djokovic continues to look unbeatable at times, and seems to be handling this promising crop of young top-10'ers very well.

That 2019 Wimbledon final still pisses me off. Fed had the match on his racket and just collapsed. Sigh.

best argument is that his style of play feels less era-dependent than the other 2. It feels like you could just put him in any era with any racket and he'd still be an incredible player. His style just feels "pure". But in today's era, Nadal and Djokovic's baseline game is just the ideal style and their mental/physical fitness levels are just off the charts (superior to Federer in both regards imo).

Nadal is the hardest of the 3 to place all-time because of his Clay dominance. I think his all-around game gets a little underrated, he's still won 7 Slams on Hardcort/Grass and been in other Finals. He dominated hardcourts in 2013 when he won the US Open. But obviously, his hardcourt/grass game isn't quite GOAT tier like Djokovic/Federer. On the flipside, Nadal is an absolute God on Clay. It's just hard to figure out how much weight Nadal should get for being the GOAT claycourt player by a mile but not quite on the level of Djokovic/Federer on the other surfaces where the majority of tennis is played.

watching. I looked at a list of top 10 players of all time and these three are 1 through 3. So is this considered the golden age of tennis? Suck that I missed it.

In comment 15159585 Essex said:

Quote:

and I will always say that watching Federer is about as enjoyable as sports can be with his complete and utter offensive attack as opposed to Nadal and Djokovic, who to varying degrees, are more grinders. It is a long debate and I think I could argue that in his prime Federer would be Djokovic in his prime more often than he would lose to him. I am not sure Federer could make that argument with Nadal because Nadal was his kryptonite. The irony is that later in his career Federer actually figured out Nadal and if he had not been so stubborn about going to the late backhand with a larger racket earlier in his career, I would bet a lot of money Federer would not have lost the 08 Wimbledon and 09 Aussie Open to Nadal (which are huge in this count). Djokovic is six years younger than Federer so their primes never really intersected except in Djokovic's crazy years of 2011 and 2012 when Federer beat him at the French in 11 and Wimby in 12. Another crazy thing is that Federer had three match points against Djokovic in three grand slam matches, The 2010 and 2011 US Open and the 2019 Wimby final and lost all three of those matches. So, although I think Federer was better than Djokovic in his prime, Djokovic is the better money player. And, if he ends up with more grand slams (almost a certainty), its hard to argue Federer over Nadal or Djoker. The one thing is that no major are indoors where Federer was just as unbeatable for a very long time. Nadal and Djokovic is not really a question in my mind. Djokovic beat Nadal on clay and was a much better all around player. I also think Djokovic leads the all time series 29-27and when you remove clay it is a Djokovic slaughter on all other surfaces.

Good take especially the 3 Match Point's you mentioned. Imagine if just those 3 points had gone Fed's way?

In comment 15159596 bw in dc said:

Quote:

Nadal only has one Aussie. Joker only has one French. Fed only has one French. If one can say they have the grand slam 2X, they are in the driver's seat, IMV.

I think it's a race no one's going to win. Djokovic is behind not just Nadal but Thiem on clay at this point, and those guys are both so tough to get past. Nadal's only won 2 non-French Slams since 2013, and Djoker was absent for one of them. These guys are both so good it's foolish to count either of them out of anything, but I think the odds are against either of them getting that 2nd missing Slam. (Of course I've now just handed Djokovic a big upset win in Paris, and ensured Nadal will return the favor next year in Australia).

Clay
Nadal: 90.8% (445-40) -- 60 titles -- 13 Slams
Djokovic: 80.1% (226-56) -- 15 titles -- 1 Slam
Federer: 76.1% (223-70) -- 11 titles -- 1 Slam

Other
Federer: 83.4% (1013-201) -- 92 titles -- 19 Slams
Djokovic: 84.2% (717-135) -- 67 titles -- 17 Slams
Nadal: 77.4% (561-164) -- 26 titles -- 7 Slams

It's just so hard to compare Nadal vs. the other two.

And am beyond ticked off that he didn’t at least get to the final in Australia. Yes Tsipitsas had a walk over in round of 16 which gave him an advantage over Nadal. Thing is I think of the 3, Djokovic is the best. I honestly with an unbiased opinion think Nadal would have at least 23 Majors by now had he not had countless injuries in his career. Many of those injuries happened in matches thus him being in the high 77% win rate and not in the 80% tier. If Nadal stays healthy, he will get to 21 this summer in France but not sure if he wins Wimbledon or US Open. Nadal did win 2019 US open though so it is possible for him to get to 22.

have winners records versus Fed?

Granted, Nadal's advantage might be skewed by the clay factor.

and the immortal Gustavo Kuerten also won 3 French Open Championships in the late 90s / early 2000s right before Nadal started his epic run.

Meanwhile, these Top 10 All Time Men's Grand Slam guys could only manage one French Open Title or less:

Roger Federer - 1
Novak Djokovic - 1
Pete Sampras - 0
Andre Agassi - 1
Jimmy Connors - 0

How's that possible? Because the slow red oatmeal at Roland Garros is the track most likely to favor a specialist over the best in the world.

Federer won Wimbledon, US Open and the Australian in 2004. The amazing Gaston Gaudio won the French Open that year, because red oatmeal.

13 French Open Titles in a 16 year span? Absolutely, Nadal is the most dominant men's tennis player at any one GS event. Nobody is going to touch that record.

Nadal only has 7 GS titles combined at Wimbledon, US Open, and Australian Open.

SEVEN. Total.

Spin it (haha) how you want, but the GOAT does not have just two Wimbledons and one Australian Open on his resume.

timing of the 3, which I take into account. He came right after Fed and right before Djokovic and has had to deal with both throughout the entirety of his career. Nadal will not get the benefit Federer had, nor the benefit Djokovic will be getting right about now until he's done (or until a 4th star emerges).

7 non-French's is still a huge accomplishment, and he isn't retired, that number can be 8 or 9 by this time next year.

why can't they be in the conversation?

In comment 15159843 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

why can't they be in the conversation?

No Wimbledons for Lendl. No Frenches for Connors.

In comment 15159840 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

timing of the 3, which I take into account. He came right after Fed and right before Djokovic and has had to deal with both throughout the entirety of his career. Nadal will not get the benefit Federer had, nor the benefit Djokovic will be getting right about now until he's done (or until a 4th star emerges). 7 non-French's is still a huge accomplishment, and he isn't retired, that number can be 8 or 9 by this time next year.

I slightly disagree with this. I think actually Federer had the most unfortunate timing. Federer had Nadal and Djokovic come after him (Nadal [June of 86] and Djokovic [May of 87]are within a year of each other). Federer is 3 years older than Nadal and 4 years older than Djokovic. The significance is that Federer had a normal generation come after him whereas Djokovic and Nadal have not. In other words, as Federer got older hew as dealing with Nadal and Djokovic in their primes, whereas Djoker and Nadal had a huge vacuum that never tested them when they passed their peak performance. If Nadal and Djokovic had similar type players three years behind them, they would have had less grand slams. Now, of course, it is complicated because Federer has also feasted off the generation of players that came after Nadal and Djokovic, but he is less in a position to do so. The only thing you can say about Federer is that he had everything to himself besides clay in his peak from 2003-2007, were Nadal never lived in a world without Federer or Djokovic.

but I also think Sampras was simply amazing. He could do everything, serve, volley, , groundstrokes, you name it.

was the greatest player I ever saw. He didn't have the luxury of tennis equipment of today, especially with the string technology that creates more spin and speed. But I think he had arguably the two greatest shots in history - his first and second serve. That was an incredible advantage.

Not being competitive in the French is a problem for Sampras. But on every other surface, I would take him against Fed, Joker, and Nadal.

In comment 15159850 bw in dc said:

Quote:

was the greatest player I ever saw. He didn't have the luxury of tennis equipment of today, especially with the string technology that creates more spin and speed. But I think he had arguably the two greatest shots in history - his first and second serve. That was an incredible advantage. Not being competitive in the French is a problem for Sampras. But on every other surface, I would take him against Fed, Joker, and Nadal.

I never liked Sampras that much but I do think he is significantly underrated in the GOAT conversation just because of that French thing. The irony about Sampras, he should have won the French. He grew up in California on clay courts and could slug it out on that surface. How he never broke through in Paris has always baffled me--but he was so good. If I am not mistaken, his last professional match was a US Open win (which is.pretty awesome) and he retired at 31.

Sampras beat Agassi for his last tournament win.

The two years prior, he lost in US Open finals to Hewitt and Safin. Both whipped him pretty good. So he showed some real resiliency to win the last title. But he was in a huge slump in terms of winning any tournament for a few years.

Having a one-handed backhand on red clay is just not the best answer. While Gusto and Lendl were able to get around that, one-hander winners are rare over in France...

In comment 15159823 RGhost said:

Quote:

and the immortal Gustavo Kuerten also won 3 French Open Championships in the late 90s / early 2000s right before Nadal started his epic run. Meanwhile, these Top 10 All Time Men's Grand Slam guys could only manage one French Open Title or less: Roger Federer - 1 Novak Djokovic - 1 Pete Sampras - 0 Andre Agassi - 1 Jimmy Connors - 0 How's that possible? Because the slow red oatmeal at Roland Garros is the track most likely to favor a specialist over the best in the world. Federer won Wimbledon, US Open and the Australian in 2004. The amazing Gaston Gaudio won the French Open that year, because red oatmeal. 13 French Open Titles in a 16 year span? Absolutely, Nadal is the most dominant men's tennis player at any one GS event. Nobody is going to touch that record. Nadal only has 7 GS titles combined at Wimbledon, US Open, and Australian Open. SEVEN. Total. Spin it (haha) how you want, but the GOAT does not have just two Wimbledons and one Australian Open on his resume.

In 45 Non-French Grand Slams, Nadal has won 7 and lost in 8 Finals
In 44 Non-French Grand Slams, Agassi won 7 and lost in 5 Finals
in 44 Non-French Grand Slams, Connors won 8 and lost in 7 Finals
In 30 Non-French Grand Slams, McEnroe won 7 and lost in 3 Finals
In 19 Non-French Grand Slams, Borg won 5 and lost in 5 Finals

Nadal is definitely the worst of the "Big 3" outside of Clay, but he has had an awesome career not even including his best tournament. 7 Grand Slams along with 8 more Finals appearances in which he lost to Djokovic/Federer in the Finals all of those times except for once to Wawrinka. Pretty damn good for a Clay court specialist.

I’m just thankful we can still watch the big 3 compete. Hoping Federer can come back and compete. Love his game. I think it will be Joker, Nadal and Federer when it’s all said and done.

NicE to see other fans and I assume players on BBI. IMHO, Sampras would have been 4th behind the big 3 if he played in the same we era. He benifited from a monster serve that was unique for a bit during his time.

NicE to see other fans and I assume players on BBI. IMHO, Sampras would have been 4th behind the big 3 if he played in the same we era. He benifited from a monster serve that was unique for a bit during his time.

Non-French Open Championships - All Time:

R. Federer - 19

N. Djokovic - 17

P. Sampras - 14

J. Connors - 8

R. Nadal - 7
A. Agassi - 7
J. McEnroe - 7

B. Becker - 6
S. Edberg - 6

B. Borg - 5

M. Wilander - 4

I. Lendl - 3
A. Ashe - 3
A. Murray - 3

French Open Championships - All Time:

R. Nadal - 13

B. Borg - 6

G. Kuerten - 3
M. Wilander - 3
I. Lendl - 3

S. Bruguera - 2
J. Kodes - 2
J. Courier - 2

One of those lists represents all the best players in the modern era. Every name you would expect to see is there, and a lot of them fall right about where they would be slotted in a discussion of the GOAT with some good natured back and forth.

The other list doesn't. At all. It's loaded with players no one will ever mention in a discussion of the GOAT. Ever.

2/3rds of Nadal's GS championships came on the same court where Gustavo Kuerten won more titles than Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Connors, Becker and McEnroe COMBINED.

That matters in the discussion for GOAT.

Federer is the best I've seen, though Djokovic is climbing the list. I was never a huge fan of Nadal, though he's a superb talent no doubt.

has come since it was THE worst major for most of the '70s and '80s. It was the last major of the year, played in December around Christmas, and many players consistently skipped it - Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, etc. So my guess it those players left some majors on the table by avoiding the Aussie.

Once they got it off grass and onto hard courts, and moved to January, it regained it's status and became a major draw again in the '90s.

You should then take out Wimbledon since you only play a couple of grass tournaments a year. Lots of grass court specialists.

Now how leads?

Djokovic.

Is Rod Laver.

Nadal dedicated his life to Clay and it paid off massively. He then had to pivot and focus on rounding out his game and he did that too, has the career GS and 7 non clay titles. Clay is also completely free game for anyone to get better at, the tech, travel, money etc is all right there for anyone if they want it. It isn't 1980 anymore.

If Nadal only had a handful of non-Clay titles then sure, i'd buy it. But throw out the French and he's still top 10 all time in titles if he wins #8.

Rod Laver? He would be Diego Schwartsman today

Can’t throw out any courts.

Laver with today's equipment and training would be as great as ever.
He could play on any surface . They didn't call him rocket for nothing and that was with a wooden racket

he sure would have been fun to watch. He had such a feel for the ball on the racket, and so much composure when he needed it. Ditto for Bill Tilden.

.