Tennis Thread - Grand Slams & The Tour

Going back in time, such a pity too that Berettini pulled out. I thought he was a genuine contender, and he was in Kyrios’s quarter of the draw.

 

Gosh will they be able to fit all 8 players on? The court isn’t all that big.

 

Yep, but Nadal's slam wins lack variation with a massive 14 of the 22 being French Open. He's without a doubt by far and away the best clay court player of all time and obviously one of the top three overall, but I won't have him as the out and out GOAT when the vast majority of his success has been at one tournament, on one surface.

Federer still ahead of both Nadal (and Djokovic) on overall tour titles and Nadal has still never won a single tour finals title, which is the most prestigious title outside of the four slams. Federer has six of those, Djokovic five.

 

Federer is clearly the best. End of.

 

Fair points all.
However I expect Djokovic will overtake Nadal as Rafa is on borrowed time with his foot and other injuries are mounting up.
They can all thank Jack Kramer for opening up tennis and Laver can wish JK had managed to convince the tennis world to do it sooner.
This generation would still be chasing his total if that were the case.

 

I'm sure Court 1 ticket holders will be delighted to hear that!
Armstrong has had a fortnight of **** ups.
Alan Mills,former player, Andrew Jarrett,former player.
Armstrong,former umpire.
That's all that needs saying!

 

I hear Sue Barker is taking over with that soppy tart the BBC have fronting the start of play,the one who called Leon Smith "Leon Davis".
Presumably the Smith Cup captain?
Annabelle Croft could hardly stifle the giggles.
Get Stubbs to do it Basil.

 

There'll be more.
Armstrong will have to face the club and tournament committee.
He's lucky that Philip Brooke and his wife Gill aren't in charge.
Ian Hewitt is much less formidable.
Gill B would be preparing the guillotine if she were still in the Royal Box!

 

I’ve little doubt that ND will eventually end up with the most slams. He probably already would have, were it not for those alleged issues with his child’s nanny which seemed to de-railed him for a year or so. And the vac issue too.

And I accept Federer lays claim to the goat title too. A wonderful player and ambassador for the game.

However, I still side with Rafa, despite the avalanche of contradictory stats coming my way here today.

He has won the most slams, and they are the things that really count. He’s also done so over the longest timespan too. His successes this year have been astonishing, considering his age and deteriorating body. To win a first Aussie open since 2009 is incredible. He had a genuine chance of winning on Sunday too before injury struck.

It’s just moving the goalposts when people say his record total of slams is somewhat invalid because a large proportion were won on only one surface. A slam is a slam.

And by the way if you want to go down that road, may I respectively point out that Nadal (and ND) has won each of the slams more than once. Federer hasn’t. So I could say that he can’t be considered the goat because he’s only one French open (and that in the year Soderling shocked us all by knocking out Rafa) and therefore not great on clay.

 

The truth is that there are reasonably sound arguments for all three, but personally I'd still place Nadal third all things considered, despite currently having the most overall slams.

No matter how it all ends in terms of stats and titles I do think Federer at his highest peak is the greatest level anyone has ever reached or likely ever will reach. Just a beautiful tennis player to watch. Incredible shot making and variety and so graceful.

I've also just never enjoyed watching Nadal's defensive "warrior" tennis, as great as he is and as great as some matches he's been involved have been.

 

All three are incredible and to have them in the same era is astonishing. All three have their merits for being the best ever but for me, Federer is the best to watch in my opinion, the backhand alone is a thing of beauty

 

Federer isn't the GOAT.

Since their maiden Grand Slam titles & all playing in the same era i.e. 2008 these are the number of Grand Slam titles won so far as of today...

Djokovic 20
Nadal 19
Federer 8

Djokovic also held the record number of weeks at no 1 in the world (373 weeks) when all 3 of these great players were playing.

 

Doesn't it depend how you define "the greatest"? It could go beyond mere statistics.

Plus, it can't be Djokovic because he's a ****.

 

It’s all subjective I guess, and an interesting debate. Good to be distracted away from our transfer forum and to be discussing goats rather than donkeys

 

Hope Norrie wins today although feel it's very unlikely. I also think Novak would beat Kyrgios and would prefer that because Kyrgios come across as a complete kn0b

 

Statistics do assist in the argument. And being the world's best player and no 1 in the world for so long amongst these great warriors of the sport does help. I don't have a problem with any of the 3 of them as ambassadors of the sport myself.

I have some sympathy for Djokovic when he players Nadal and Federer tbf, the crowd go over the top cheering and clapping when Djokovic plays a bad shot or misses usually. Was a lot more respectable back in the day when I started watching tennis in the 80s. The epic Federer/Djokovic match at Wimbledon that went to the 'super tie break' was one of the worst examples of this over the top crowd, and I must admit when Federer missed his chance of winning the match on his serve and Djokovic came back to win in that tie break I must admit I got some satisfaction from it lol

 

As long as Novak takes care of Norrie without it being a gruelling match, he should have too much for Kyrgios I think.

 

Yeah, there is certainly a pro-Roger bias. Mind you, you can see why: he is a glorious player.

On another note, it's interesting that you must be of a similar vintage to me and still enjoy watching tennis. I've gone right off it - Federer is the only player who draws me in at all these days.

 

Djokovic and Nadal have had the benefit of having their primes during this overall pretty woeful era. There has been almost zero competition to any of them in the last 10 years or so outside of Murray, who has been finished for years now. No one new has come through that comes within a million miles of any of their levels. Federer came through when the likes of Sampras, Agassi and even Roddick were still around, and then had to contend with Nadal and Djokovic rising up to their peaks as he started to come down from his.

It's hardly surprising that they've won more in the past decade or so when Federer is now 41 and they're both 5 and 6 years younger, is it? They may have played a good chunk in the same era and all been great rivals but Federer is a fair amount older and their peaks don't line up.

 

I've followed Novak's career since he was about 20 so have been able to continue to watch it with some interest still, though it tends to be just the majors in recent years. When he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon in 2007 he was giving him a match but had to retire with an injury. I saw enough of him in that match to think he may become a 'major winner' contender. I never thought he'd achieve what he has achieved now back then. How much interest I will have in tennis when these 3 guys don't play no more, I'm not sure, I hope I will still follow it.

 

You're a bit younger than me, then. I grew up with Borg and McEnroe and was a huge fan of the latter.

 

Federer was still only 26 going into the 2008 season. He just couldn't dominate Nadal and Djokovic like he could an Andy Roddick or a Leyton Hewitt. They were on another level.

 

We may be of similar time, I said Novak was about 20 not me lol. I remember McEnroe very well, I was a Jimmy Connors supporter back then in the 80s. I didn't like McEnroe with his moaning, however he produced the greatest performance of a tennis player I had probably ever seen in 1984 in the Wimbledon final. It was tennis poetry I have to admit.

 

Yes, I liked Jimmy C too.

 

But we're not talking about just the specific 2008 season, we're talking about the entire 14 years since then? It makes sense that Djokovic and Nadal would have won substantially more in the last decade or so considering the sizeable age gap between them and Federer, the different stages of their career they're at and the fact that there is next to zero competition outside of those three for any of the slams. Everyone is borderline comparatively useless. No one worth a damn has come through in years.

Federer's prime is widely considered to be 2004-2009. That's when he was at his absolute best as a tennis player. He still maintained a very high level, but he's been in his 30's (now about to turn 41) for well over a decade now. He was exiting his peak just as Nadal and Djokovic were coming into theirs. Of course they've dominated more in recent years.

 

So how many games do we think Norrie will win in total today ? I'm going for 7.

 

Plus flag-waving?

 

I don't accept a male tennis player's prime is early 20s, I believe it to be about 26-31 in the modern era. Even if we accept that after 35 years of age players are past their best and use the numbers up that point, Federer is still well behind.

 

The point is that there's around a 6 year age gap, which is big, so it stands to reason that in the last 10-12 years Djokovic and Nadal would have won more, being so much younger and in/closer to their primes. It's widely accepted that Federer peaked young. As I've already said he obviously still maintained a great level, but his very best tennis and his best physical state was around 2004-2009.

Like I've said, I think there's arguments for all three, but I think Federer's very best level beats either Nadal's or Djokovic's, and he still has the most overall titles. He's the overall most decorated player of the three, even if Nadal now has the most slams... most of which have come at one tournament.

 

He may win the most style points title or the most popular player title but definitely not the GOAT.

 

Er, no, he's won the most ATP titles.

To say he's "definitely not the GOAT" is ridiculous. There is an argument for all three of them. I'd love to say he definitively is the GOAT and no one can argue with that, but that'd be just as idiotic as saying he's definitively not...

 

Its not ridiculous at all, my explanations as to why its either Novak and Rafa, with Novak edging it, are quite easy to take on board. Most of the tennis experts in the media have removed Federer from the discussion in recent times as well. A lot of titles that Federer won was when Rafa and Novak weren't around. He actually became a better player from 2008, he had to, the tennis was next level. Anyway, lets enjoy the remaining matches and see what happens