OT: Djokovic one match away from Calendar Grand Slam

[DCasey91]

Definite GOAT in 2021 in the French this year everything else now is gravy train. He has doubles in the hardest thing to do in tennis (Clay, Grass 2x or more). Extremely different surfaces. Borg is the classic what if on how much greater he could’ve been.

It was Federer first, then Nadal, then Nadal/Joker then the incredible older Federer renaissance (after a long while of not winning a slam) then Nadal/Djokic. Now it’s Djokic who basically stands alone among the three. Which is absurd because all 3 at one point or another had very credible GOAT cases.

I mean this is about as clear as you can get with Joker. All three had to run the highest possible gauntlet when matched up.

High chance we won’t see 3 GOAT level players literally running into each at every event for close to two decades lol.

[DCasey91]

Tennis and weak era? Now I’ve heard it all before.

Male’s tennis has a very credible case for the most top end talent in this century.

Not everyday there’s 3 literal GOATs all versing each other in their primes dozens of times over, multiple times in finals etc etc. It’s never been done in human history.

Nadal vs Federer
Nadal vs Djokovic
Federer vs Djokovic

All GOAT matchups on over a decade ++. It’s all on the backlogs through time.

It’s like saying:

Ali vs Louis
Ali vs Foreman
Foreman vs Louis

.... For over a decade. And all at peak powers for years on end. So rematch after a loss or win? Nah playa all three of us are going to be each other for 10+ years GL to all three.

That’s what really happened.

[DCasey91]

Roger is the Greatest of All Time. That isn't even a debate.

Nadal is the King of Clay. That isn't even a debate.

Djoker is right there but due to the fact most of his career he played against extremely weak competition. If Djokers age aligned with Rogers...we wouldn't even be having this convo

It isn't a debate because Djokovic is clearly better and there wasn't a bigger Fed fan than me in his prime. Djokovic is the GOAT by virtually every metric based on accomplishments, opponents faced, h2h, etc. Federer faced a weaker competition when he won most of his titles compared to Nadal and Djokovic.

This is a useless stat for two reasons, which is the same reason. It only views final ELO, and since Djokovic and Nadal played a crapton of their finals against each other, of course their final opponent ELO rating will be higher. That literally only tells us that they played a lot of finals against each other.

So then wouldn’t that make Djokovic’s accolades and achievements and feats all the more impressive? He’s literally vsing not one but two goat level players in as you say a crap ton of finals.

I mean tennis is a sport that you can’t deny ratings or literal comp. It’s all there

If your road to a finals win is vsing Nadal or Federer majority of the time and and winning the majority I mean weak era and weaker comp is a false argument.

Say for example Peak Nadal or Fed to Renaissance Fed 25% of the time was replaced by a number 2 player in Fed’s era which let’s be honest isn’t in the same convo as Nadal or Fed is went against Djokovic then how much better would his astounding resume seem? That’s why tennis is some ways is inarguable because there is nowhere to hide.

Fed didn’t have 2 goats faced enough in his prime.... Djokovic and Nadal did.

It’s like we should knock down Louis because Foreman and Ali had to face other and Louis himself a whole crap ton. When Louis before didn’t have Ali or Foreman for that matter.

See how crazy that sounds to bring down Djokovics iron proof case on comp?

Put simply he faced Federer and Nadal a lot. Two GOAT standard players... and won the majority share.

[DCasey91]

It's true to an extent...he's just not an enjoyable player to watch. That's why literally every crowd doesn't get behind him lol

His game is not unfun, f.e. in the last match va Nadal he had more winners and less unforced errors than Nadal, he’s attacking more than you care to admit. You’re just a biased hater, sorry.

Mostly counter winners, he isn't really out there dictating play.

Defense and returns dictate the play. He does it better than Fed does it because he’s naturally bigger/stronger.

I do question a lot of posters here on trying to bring down Djokovic. It’s like as if they’ve never watched them duel together. Fun fact they’ve all dueled the most out any 3 goats can possibly, humanely do. I don’t think you could find 3 goats in the one arena over a decade long span and it’s still going.

Djokovic case is in fact more iron proof than the other two and there’s no way around it. This isn’t some sport to falsify achievements especially not Djokovic’s one. Because if you do then by definition that lowers Fed and Nadal’s case for that matter lol now your really clutching at straws that don’t exist.

If you want a more suspect case check 04-07 Fed. Djokovic beats that all ends up.

[LordCovington33]

Don Budge did it as well in the 1930s.

Things to point out:

For both Budge and Laver's 1st Grand Slam, they weren't the best players in the world. The best players had turned pro and weren't eligible to compete in amateur-only event.

For Laver the 2nd Grand Slam is the BIG accomplishment because it was in the Open Era, and he wasn't young at the time.

It must be understood though that this is coming on the heels of a select group of pros constantly touring with each other and then being brought back into the fold against wet-behind-the-ears younger guys who'd never had the same opportunity. Laver deserves a ton of credit for what he did, but he also had a unique opportunity that made things easier for him.

I'll also say that I don't think Laver would be able to compete with the best in the modern game, and neither would his contemporary Ken Rosewall (who actually won more pro majors than Laver did). Just too small. (Their contemporary Pancho Gonzales on the other hand wouldn't have that problem and I'd generally give him the nod over, say, Pete Sampras.)

Laver’s physique and skills-set is not built for the modern game, just as we don’t know how the modern players would perform in the wooden racquet era (assuming they have the same conditioning and amount of training as the 1960’s players). Futile to speculate. Different games and different skills sets required. His accomplishments are incredible either way.
Federer saw Laver as the GOAT just as Laver sees Federer as the greatest. Immense respect for each other’s game. Anything beyond that is speculation as the game resembles very little to old one due mainly to racquet technology.

Not remotely futile to speculate any more than it's futile to do such comparisons in basketball. To think we can't at least apply logic to the situation is far too cynical.

You talk of physique, but consider that Ken Rosewall was 5'7". A half foot shorter than Federer & Nadal, who themselves suffered because they were short relative to Djokovic. I don't know what the theory would even be that would conclude Rosewall would be able to match up to them in today's game. And while Rod Laver was taller than Rosewall and it would be reasonable to expect him to fare better than Rosewall, he's just plain by today's standards.

What about in the other direction? Hard to be as sure that player's of today couldn't be great back then, but I'll say Nadal simply could not his the ball like he does now if he played with a wooden racket. You'd shank like crazy, and even when you got it perfect, you'd not produce enough topspin to really make the ball kick in such a devastating way. So the question with Nadal is how well he'd play with more traditional strokes.

Federer, by contrast, to me has shown a complete mastery of every stroke you could want to hit while playing with a too-traditional racket during his prime - which held him back in this era, but it did allow him to really make the case that he could master the game in all eras. Doesn't mean he'd necessarily be better than Nadal in olden days (Nadal would still have the mental toughness edge, among other things), but certainly more of a sure thing.

You seem to be the only one discussing how well they’d fair in today’s game. Nowhere did I say Laver is suited for today’s game. Today’s game is suited for taller players, mainly due to racquet technology. And yes, it is futile to know how today’s players would go in the wooden racquet era. Less focus on ground stokes and power and more on finesse. I think Federer is suited to that, but nobody knows. Also your comment about basketball is a stretch. Yes, hard to draw comparisons between different eras as game plays have changed, but at least they are using the same equipment, so you can get a rough idea, though far from accurate. Tennis changed the moment people shifted to graphite. Called on a different skill set. So, yes it is futile to discuss how today’s players would fair back then. While it is obvious Rosewall and Laver are not suited to today’s game. Doesn’t make them any less a champion. They were the best given the equipment they had at the time.

[wco81]

Leave it to NBA fans to apply the GOAT label in another sport.

[xinxin]

He might not be as well liked as Federer and Nadal, but by the end of the day, he would have won the most GS titles & perhaps the GOAT title as well.. & doing so at the peak of both Federer and Nadal's eras. right smack in the middle.

I'm a Federer fan first (his style is just so great to watch) but I also knew that at some point, Novak would take over. I would prefer Novak doing this than Nadal, who i always felt was too one-dimensional.

[DCasey91]

Yeah as cases go there’s more holes in Nadal and Federer’s overall resune but this isn’t nitpicking this is fact.

Fed and Djokovic are both more consistent on surfaces outside of clay. Djokovic is the only player to have beaten Nadal 4 times in clay in finals.

Outside of Bjorg (Grass) Nadal in the modern era as we all should know is basically unbloodybeatable on clay by his godly all time % on that surface. He’s invetiable. I mean never in point in time could you verse a higher lvl of difficulty that’s not even discussing the battles against Fed and Nadal outside of clay courts which there’s a crap load.

Beat a Prime Federer when he was 20, And that was GOAT level Fed (When Nadal and Fed won a record 11 with no other winner in slams in a row!)

Boom a 20 year old wins, thus the BIG 3 begins. That was 13 years ago and counting. As overlap goes there is so much data between the three the evidence is beyond legitimate.

I mean what more do you want? there’s more than a dozen finals and titles matchups along to with those facts lol.

[DCasey91]

2006 was peak Federer
2015 was peak Djokovic

These are the two most credible all time modern seasons.

Now if you want the metric comparison Djokovic has a way more stacked and accomplished and experienced top ten to go up against.

Peak Fed basically lost to a 20yr old world number 2 Nadal on clay (50-2 in 2005 and 26 - 0 2006 lol freak but the year before he was better overall more wins injury). Outside of that he won a crap ton. But the truth is Djokovic really did have the harder comp.

The results and peer comp paint a very very distinct picture on their best years in terms of accolades, titles and achievements. 2015 top ten is stacked.

[FinnTheHuman]

People also forgetting how Murray and Wawrinka helped Fed and Nadal slow Djokovic down, when Fed and Nadal have fallen off themselves and couldn’t beat Djokovic. No player in 2004-2007 Fed era was as good as Murray, and Wawrinka had 1-tournament peaks in the 10’s that were better than anything guys like Roddick, Hewitt or Nalbandian ever showed imo.

[stoo]

Watch on YouTube

this is so funny )

Shoot yourself in the leg soldier! It's for glory!

Seriously, GOAT debate still ongoing obviously, with great majority of fans and tennis players giving it to Djokovic. Now we only have to remind ourselves that it's greater chance Djokovic wins 5 more grand slams than Federer and Nadal 2 combined. It's like we would debate if Lebron or MJ are the GOAT, if Lebron wins 7 more championships

[DCasey91]

People also forgetting how Murray and Wawrinka helped Fed and Nadal slow Djokovic down, when Fed and Nadal have fallen off themselves and couldn’t beat Djokovic. No player in 2004-2007 Fed era was as good as Murray, and Wawrinka had 1-tournament peaks in the 10’s that were better than anything guys like Roddick, Hewitt or Nalbandian ever showed imo.

Even though they have neg records (who doesn’t lol) him, Tsonga, Murray and Del Potro are the only players to beat the big three at slams when they themselves held the world number one ranking. Nadal/Djokovic era. War level Wawrinka was going ham 2014-2016 and Murray didn’t win more because duh.

Average age of the top ten at Feds peak 2006- 24
Average age of the the top ten at Djokovic’s peak 2015 season - 29.5

7/10 had 10 or less tour titles
2015... all of the top ten had 10 or more tour titles

Average time spent in the top ten for all players - 2.4 seasons for Fed’s peak best season

Djokovic? 6.4. 6.4 season average for the top ten means it’s stacked. 2014-2016 War level Wawrinka, Nadal, Murray, and Fed was having an all time peak run from Wells to the US/Wimbledon Finals Del, Gasquet, Berdych, Nishi, Tsonga etc it’s jampacked. Nishi is the youngest at 25! A lot of them had QF’s multiple SF, Slam Finals, A Slam win by Wawrinka, ATP titles, the whole works that year it’s just that Djokovic went ballistic.

Also the titles, accolades, Grand Slam wins, atp victories etc etc is a big gap overall. Also the parity which is far more important is spread.

Fwiw they’ve all beaten each other at major events, highest level tour finals and masters pre prime, peak and post prime lol so there’s a heap of overlap. No coincidence they all played each other the most. So nitpicking a certain final is kind of hard to do when they’ve all taken wins of each other at very different stages of their career. All of them

2004-2007 was GOAT level Nadal which went on for a long time and really Roddick but to Fed that was a play toy. I mean that 2015 top ten is stacked as you can get and Djokovic bested all of them that year.

[cool93]

I'm a Federer fanboy, so I still think he's the greatest player I've seen play the game... but if Djoker wins this U.S. Open I think his resume makes a very good case for GOAT status. IIRC Djoker also has the most Masters 1000 titles as well (by a long shot), which also hold a lot of value in my eyes.

If he wins today there is literally no debate about his GOAT status.

Sent from my G3416 using RealGM mobile app

[moderndarwin]

I think a peak Sampras takes all of them.

[HEKTOR]

If he wins today there is literally no debate about his GOAT status.

Agreed.

[Noctilux]

I think a peak Sampras takes all of them.

Takes them all of them to what, lunch?

[azcatz11]

I think a peak Sampras takes all of them.

Agreed - No one could return prime Sampras serve

[ky_23]

He is the Mj of tennis. Absolute winner. The mentality and trophies tell everything. He plays like he is at away court everytime, always embraces the hate and uses it as a motivation. I believe he is the certified goat since 2019 wimbledon final against Federer. When he defended the championship point against Federer in front of the hundereds of opponent crowd and got away with the trophy, that was it.

[ceiling raiser]

Little over one hour left until the finals.

[NyKnicks1714]

I think a peak Sampras takes all of them.

Lol absolutely not