Nadal 12 French 2 Wimbledon, 3 US, 1 Australian - 18 Grand Slam titles
Djoko 1 French 4 Wimbledon, 3 US, 7 Australian - 15 Grand Slam titles
Federer 1 French 8 Wimbledon, 5 US, 6 Australian - 20 Grand Slam titles
To me Djoko is in a position to win the next 3 Slams and tie Nadal that fast and of course it's not all about Grand Slams - I think Djoko has a strong argment as GOAT even right now in total ............but he could just as easily lose the next 3 too........but who's your fave?
I love Federer and Djoko ............Nadal not so much - his face is annoying to me and I'd like to rub his face in the clay ..................but it's not like I'm gonna say he sucks either
Who ya got?
February 27, 2017 at 12:06 : distain (pupdurcs) posted on Gold Derby:
I'm not an avid tennis fan so I don't know the current form of these guys but I always liked Djoko a little bit more than the others. And of course he's the best of them for quite some time now and the #1 in the world ranking by far.
Tennis is my favorite sport so just a few thoughts.
First: I think when all is said and done Djokovic will end up with the most Grand Slam titles. But this number alone doesn't equal who's the best. I've now followed tennis closely over more than two decades. And if I'd have to say what was the best tennis player I've ever seen I'd pick Nadal around 2008-2010. When he was fit, he was absolutely unplayable back then - even more so than Djokovic in 2011.
I like all three - and thanks to my job I had the fortune to talk to all three of them personally and obviously hear a lot of stories. Federer is a nice guy and a great ambassador for the sport and I really like him, but Nadal has to be my clear favourite. There was probably never such a huge star in sports that was at the same time such a humble guy, whom his success basically didn't change at all. I like Djokovic much less than Rafa and a little bit less than Roger. He's acting a lot in my opinion, but still a good guy.
I'm just happy that we had such a great era in tennis. Soo many memorable matches between those three and all are a pleasure to watch.
P.S. To pick a GOAT right now is incredibly difficult. I really don't know. I'd maybe slightly pick Rafa now, but admittedly this may also be because he's my favourite.
I still think Federer's numbers look prettier cause he had a fortune that there was a hole on the ATP Tour when he broke through. An old Agassi, an incosistent Safin, an overachieving Hewitt and Roddick, who didn't have a backhand, were his toughest rivals until Nadal came.
One of the things about doing this talk in sports as opposed to the Arts (Filmmakers, authors, painters) is you can narrow it down as small or extrapolate it out as much as you like.
For example hockey is my favorite sport and often that argument comes down to Wayne Gretzky vs. Mario Lemieux. To me there was no greater player than Gretzky ages 18-29 but after that age Lemieux who was close in that run of his was a much better player. So on some level you're constantly cutting down time eras and stuff in all sports or rewarding longevity at the same time.
It has been a remarkable era for tennis and it's fun even to watch just the mental game of each player against each other too.
February 27, 2017 at 12:06 : distain (pupdurcs) posted on Gold Derby:
Federer is my favorite so I always root for him. For the most part he played well and looked good and in shape yesterday against Nadal, a good match especially tense at the end with Nadal's returns Fed struggled a bit with and which definitely won't get easier against Djok who's won his last four matches against Fed too. Nadal I never minded but never liked much either - his little complaints yesterday were annoying though like when the sun was in his eyes or even on the side he dropped like a piece of plastic and the way he looked at it until a ball boy picked it up lol.
Djok I always love to watch, I remember years ago thinking it was like you were watching a physical machine, but he's funny too. And kinda looks like Daniel Auteuil.
So on some level you're constantly cutting down time eras and stuff in all sports or rewarding longevity at the same time.
That's indeed always an interesting point in sports. How do you compare longevity with peak? A fascinating case in tennis also: What would have been if Borg would still have had motivation in tennis and not have retired aged 26? But Federer certainly gets points for his longevity.
Also in football it's fascinating: Ronaldinho 2004/2005 was maybe the peak of any player I've seen, but he managed to do it only for two or three years (plus some very, very good years). But it's still enough for me to rate him higher than any other player in my lifetime (bit of cheating since Maradona also played, but I was too young too watch, but you get what I mean) except Zidane and Messi, who were on the same or a similar extraordinary level, but much longer.
Sadly can't discuss it on hockey with you, cause it's one of the sports I don't care for. But I always had the feeling that this is the one sport, in which there is an unanimous #1 with Gretzky.
For the time being Fed is still the GOAT. Even if Nadal wins a few more French Opens and passes him I'm not going to call him the best just because his number of wins comes from dominance on one surface. He's only got 5 slams outside the French, which is nothing to sneeze at, but on hardcourts and grass he's a very good, but not great player IMO. If you look at the other all time great players, Fed, Laver and Sampras have 12, 7 and 7 slams respectively off their best surface (grass).
Djokovic could very well end up surpassing both of them, though. Especially with players able to be competitive into their 30's now with better conditioning.
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jul 13, 2019 17:59:42 GMT
Federer is definitely the best as far as I'm concerned. I know Nadal has a mighty impressive total, but take out the French and while he is still in an impressive place, it just doesn't tally up enough for me. Djokovic could definitely get to a point were his slam stats christen him the greatest, but at them same time, I just associate Federer with a class apart(ness) that the other two don't have. It's interesting, as I remember back when Sampras retired, and a lot of commentators were saying his 14 would not be surpassed for a long, long time and some even said it may never be. Talk about opinions ageing horribly and quickly .
In terms of who I root for. I root for all of them to lose, every time they play a match. I appreciate the hell out of all three of them for their excellence, but I personally think that their dominance has made men's tennis hugely uninteresting as a sport. I'm not even going to watch the final tomorrow, and that'll be the first men's final I have chosen not to watch in over 20 years. The few times I've missed one, was because I was too busy to watch it. Tomorrow, I simply don't care. I particularly dislike Nadal. I'm sick to the back teeth his antics between points. He's a tedious little shit.
Djokovic to me is just not in the same league as the other two when it comes to out and out greatness. Let's be real, he's probably got as complete a game as anyone in the history of this sport has had. He's got almost all the shots, the physicality. He's like if you make a tennis character on a video game and just turn all the attributes up to a hundred. He's a testament to hard work. He just doesn't have that same... I don't know how to describe it, there's just something between the ears he lacks that they have. The way that to this day he lets crowds get to him, the shameless desire to be loved as much as the other two... He's just so very mortal mentally, and mentality is what takes you from the great to the immortal.
To me he also sort of lacks the same sort of killer instinct that they have? Don't get me wrong, he's massively intense on the court, and often plays big points really well, but it seems to me like for most of his career whenever he has set himself a goal he more often than not fails to accomplish it without getting a couple of tries.
Federer is just a remarkable dude. For many, many years I refused to get on board with the whole GOAT thing, and I still don't really get drawn into arguments like that, but to me the way he has again and again reinvented his game over the past 5 years in order to stay at the top of the sport is deserving of so much credit, especially considering in his prime what put me off the most about him was how god damn stubborn he was.
He's the one of these 3 guys who I genuinely believe could have probably been just as good no matter what era he played in. The way he moves and makes everything look so effortless even now closing in on 38, but combines that balletic grace with something close to mastery of the basic essentials of the game - the serve, his defensive capabilities, is literally one of a kind in the games history. For years Nadal was essentially all that stood between him and complete and utter dominance of the mens game (Djokovic could never say that, there would always be a bunch of guys knocking him off here or there) the fact that this is the case despite him playing low percentage tennis compared to the other two is crazy.
Nadal to me is remarkable because he is a pure and simple, dyed in the wool dirtballer, his game was literally made for clay, and yet he's wrapped up the full set of the majors. Now granted in any previous era of the game when you required massively different skill sets to accomplish that feat he'd more than likely never have gotten a sniff at the other three, but you can only judge a guy within his own era, and the fact that he has accomplished as much as he has off a clay court given the way he plays tennis is madness.
He also was the guy who given the way he plays was immediately determined to be heading for a very early retirement. "He'll be done in 5 years" they said, "He'll never last past 25" they said, and yet here we are 14 years since his break out, the guy is going bald as Lenin, and he is out there setting longevity records in the sports history. He was won Roland Garros more time than anybody (man or woman) has won any major, and that is supposed to be the young mans slam.
He doesn't have anywhere near as complete a skill set as the other two guys, and yet here he is going toe to toe with them in the history books. Mentally he's just so monstrously titanic he has propelled himself into their company at this late stage through sheer force of will. Guys that play tennis like Nadal definitely, definitely are not still competing for major titles at his age. There has literally never been one before. Between the ears he's just something else. He has the icy will of a Sampras or a Borg combined with the fiery competitiveness of a Connors, and he's stayed close with his rivals even without the attacking skills they have that are generally essential to late career success.
Watching him in the final game of that match yesterday so hopelessly outclassed and yet suddenly coming to life at the last when his back was against the wall was hilarious. He does not have the game/no longer has the physical force to compete with Federer on this surface when the guy is playing well, but he wasn't going to let that stop him from refusing to go gentle into the night regardless.
Both he and Federer have these unreal, never seen before qualities, one physically and one mentally. I don't think any of these guys is the greatest to ever play the sport, I think the amount of titles they have amassed is due to the homogenization of the sport over the last 15 years, but Roger and Rafa's special qualities put them in the conversation. Novak is an all time great, you can't take that away from him, but he's just a friggin' robot. There is nothing uniquely special about him.
Sorry, just very happy to see a tennis thread on here
Post by themoviesinner on Jul 13, 2019 20:39:58 GMT
I think all three are great tennis players, probably all time great, but I would consider Federer as slightly above the others, as he possesses a level of creativity in his game that the other two just don't have. He is an artist on court and his game is elegant and fascinating. He can make even the most difficult shot seem easy and simple and his style of play is incredibely varied. His matches almost always are entertaining and feature high quality tennis and he is one of the main reasons I became a huge fan of tennis.
Names have power in identity. Others can use names as weapons. Names are a hook that can be used to track you across the planes. Remain nameless, and you shall be safe.
The most important factor, why this three are soo good, by the way, is their defensive skills. With them they totally changed the way tennis is played - part of it is also due to the change in courts. But first Federer and later even more Nadal and Djokovic began to retrieve balls like nobody else before and were able to turn them into attacks again. They move perfect (also in offense, Federer's little steps before hitting a ball are often unnoticed, but they are key) and it's soo tough for the opponents to hit one or two balls more than they have two and more often than not forces errors.
Great match. Quality wise not as good as the 2008 final, but it certainly didn't lack drama. I feel really sorry for Federer. He led in every important stat except unforced errors, where he was slightly behind, making a few more. But once again Djokovic showed his mental strength, making far less mistakes in the decisive moments.