OT: Djoker Becomes Undisputed GOAT

[bonita_the_frog]

But Djokovic didn't win a slam title (other than 2008 AO) until 2011, so he only started winning big after Nadal lost A LOT of speed when his knee tendinitis worsened after winning 2008 Roland Garros, 2008 Wimbledon and Olympics.

Nadal should have taken 6 months off but instead played the 2009 AO and took cortisone shots over and over and played a combined 9 hours in the semi and final. He was never the same after that, whereas 2004-2008 Nadal was as fast as (or faster than) Alcaraz currently is.

Federer also declined, really since 2008 Federer's level was slipping, as he was recovering from mono and was never the same again... He was still very skillful, but he just looked a lot swifter on his feet before the mono and never looked as athletic after that.

That's patently false, you're trying to rewrite history. Nadal won more Slams after 2011 than before. And Federer was 27 years old and in his prime in 2008. But I wonder what happened around 2008 that caused Federer to stop being as dominant, maybe two young generational talents that started to come into their own, hmm.

I'm stating facts, 2004-2008 Nadal moved like Alcaraz or faster, and once he lost that speed it gave Djokovic an advantage in their most physical encounters.

[maxpower8888]

But Djokovic didn't win a slam title (other than 2008 AO) until 2011, so he only started winning big after Nadal lost A LOT of speed when his knee tendinitis worsened after winning 2008 Roland Garros, 2008 Wimbledon and Olympics.

Nadal should have taken 6 months off but instead played the 2009 AO and took cortisone shots over and over and played a combined 9 hours in the semi and final. He was never the same after that, whereas 2004-2008 Nadal was as fast as (or faster than) Alcaraz currently is.

Federer also declined, really since 2008 Federer's level was slipping, as he was recovering from mono and was never the same again... He was still very skillful, but he just looked a lot swifter on his feet before the mono and never looked as athletic after that.

That's patently false, you're trying to rewrite history. Nadal won more Slams after 2011 than before. And Federer was 27 years old and in his prime in 2008. But I wonder what happened around 2008 that caused Federer to stop being as dominant, maybe two young generational talents that started to come into their own, hmm.

I'm stating facts, 2004-2008 Nadal moved like Alcaraz or faster, and once he lost that speed it gave Djokovic an advantage in their most physical encounters.

How about the fact that in 2008 Djokovic was only 20 and nowhere near his prime? You're basically saying that a prime Federer lost a bit of speed and everything changed lol. Did you ever think about the fact that the only reason Fed had a winning record against Djokovic early on was because he was in his prime and Djokovic was a teenager?

[maxpower8888]

That's patently false, you're trying to rewrite history. Nadal won more Slams after 2011 than before. And Federer was 27 years old and in his prime in 2008. But I wonder what happened around 2008 that caused Federer to stop being as dominant, maybe two young generational talents that started to come into their own, hmm.

I'm stating facts, 2004-2008 Nadal moved like Alcaraz or faster, and once he lost that speed it gave Djokovic an advantage in their most physical encounters.

How about the fact that in 2008 Djokovic was only 20 and nowhere near his prime? You're basically saying that a prime Federer lost a bit of speed and everything changed lol. Did you ever think about the fact that the only reason Fed had a winning record against Djokovic early on was because he was in his prime and Djokovic was a teenager?

Quoting myself, I misread Nadal as Federer. Between 2004 and 2008 Nadal was 18-21, of course he lost speed. So did Novak, as does every player, you're body is always at its fastest in your late teens/early 20's.

But even putting that aside, 2004-2008 were not Nadal's prime years. In his prime years he was still losing to Djokovic except at the French.

[bonita_the_frog]

That's patently false, you're trying to rewrite history. Nadal won more Slams after 2011 than before. And Federer was 27 years old and in his prime in 2008. But I wonder what happened around 2008 that caused Federer to stop being as dominant, maybe two young generational talents that started to come into their own, hmm.

I'm stating facts, 2004-2008 Nadal moved like Alcaraz or faster, and once he lost that speed it gave Djokovic an advantage in their most physical encounters.

How about the fact that in 2008 Djokovic was only 20 and nowhere near his prime? You're basically saying that a prime Federer lost a bit of speed and everything changed lol. Did you ever think about the fact that the only reason Fed had a winning record against Djokovic early on was because he was in his prime and Djokovic was a teenager?

"Everything changed" because of Federer's decline? No, most of what I said was about Nadal's short athletic prime.
Nadal's knee tendinitis was the hottest topic in tennis throughout his 20s, and that was the biggest factor by FAR in the changing of the guard.

Go to any tennis forum and its a fact 2008 is easily the best version of Nadal EVER on clay, and Nadal was slower in 2010 but was still far better and far more athletic than anything he did in 2013-2020.

Nadal was like a video game character on clay in 2008 in particular, and he also was better on grass in 2007-08 than any other year.

[maxpower8888]

I'm stating facts, 2004-2008 Nadal moved like Alcaraz or faster, and once he lost that speed it gave Djokovic an advantage in their most physical encounters.

How about the fact that in 2008 Djokovic was only 20 and nowhere near his prime? You're basically saying that a prime Federer lost a bit of speed and everything changed lol. Did you ever think about the fact that the only reason Fed had a winning record against Djokovic early on was because he was in his prime and Djokovic was a teenager?

"Everything changed" because of Federer's decline? No, most of what I said was about Nadal's short athletic prime.
Nadal's knee tendinitis was the hottest topic in tennis throughout his 20s, and that was the biggest factor by FAR in the changing of the guard.
Go to any tennis forum and its as fact 2008 is easily the best version of Nadal EVER on clay.

Again, you're trying to rewrite history. Nadal wasn't even ranked #1 in the world until August of 2008, that was only the beginning of his run. You're trying to make the claim that this is the start of his decline, stop it.

[bonita_the_frog]

How about the fact that in 2008 Djokovic was only 20 and nowhere near his prime? You're basically saying that a prime Federer lost a bit of speed and everything changed lol. Did you ever think about the fact that the only reason Fed had a winning record against Djokovic early on was because he was in his prime and Djokovic was a teenager?

"Everything changed" because of Federer's decline? No, most of what I said was about Nadal's short athletic prime.
Nadal's knee tendinitis was the hottest topic in tennis throughout his 20s, and that was the biggest factor by FAR in the changing of the guard.
Go to any tennis forum and its as fact 2008 is easily the best version of Nadal EVER on clay.

Again, you're trying to rewrite history. Nadal wasn't even ranked #1 in the world until August of 2008, that was only the beginning of his run. You're trying to make the claim that this is the start of his decline, stop it.

Good luck finding someone who thinks Nadal was better on clay/grass during 2011-2020 than he was in 2008.
Its called "prodigy", and it was especially obvious Nadal peaked early because of the knee tendinitis which took him down.

[maxpower8888]

"Everything changed" because of Federer's decline? No, most of what I said was about Nadal's short athletic prime.
Nadal's knee tendinitis was the hottest topic in tennis throughout his 20s, and that was the biggest factor by FAR in the changing of the guard.
Go to any tennis forum and its as fact 2008 is easily the best version of Nadal EVER on clay.

Again, you're trying to rewrite history. Nadal wasn't even ranked #1 in the world until August of 2008, that was only the beginning of his run. You're trying to make the claim that this is the start of his decline, stop it.

Good luck finding someone who thinks Nadal was better on clay/grass during 2011-2020 than he was in 2008.

You'll find plenty of people if you look outside your echo chamber that claims Nadal's prime was at 21. And what a prime it was to last all of a year before he apparently turned into an old man who couldn't move anymore at 22, wow, absolute GOAT.

[bonita_the_frog]

Again, you're trying to rewrite history. Nadal wasn't even ranked #1 in the world until August of 2008, that was only the beginning of his run. You're trying to make the claim that this is the start of his decline, stop it.

Good luck finding someone who thinks Nadal was better on clay/grass during 2011-2020 than he was in 2008.

You'll find plenty of people if you look outside your echo chamber that claims Nadal's prime was at 21. And what a prime it was to last all of a year before he apparently turned into an old man who couldn't move anymore at 22, wow, absolute GOAT.

Well I've never been in an "echo chamber", because Federer was the most popular tennis player on forums, not Nadal.
And please stop making things up, I said Nadal lost speed because of knee tendinitis, never that he "couldn't move".

2008 = knee tendinitis escalated, eventually requiring cortisone shots during 2009 AO
2012 = Hoffa Syndrome, unable to play the 2012 US Open and 2013 AO
So Nadal's speed took TWO hits, losing speed 2008-09 and again 2012-13.

Of course Nadal still beat Djokovic in 2013 and beyond, but Djokovic would have an advantage athletically because this wasn't the 2008 version of Nadal.
Anyway, you are a waste of time, since you clearly never saw tennis in 2008...

[maxpower8888]

To any non-tennis fans reading this thread, what the Fed/Nadal copers are saying in basketball terms is "LeBron only surpassed Kobe because Kobe got old."

[maxpower8888]

Good luck finding someone who thinks Nadal was better on clay/grass during 2011-2020 than he was in 2008.

You'll find plenty of people if you look outside your echo chamber that claims Nadal's prime was at 21. And what a prime it was to last all of a year before he apparently turned into an old man who couldn't move anymore at 22, wow, absolute GOAT.

Stop making things up, I said Nadal lost speed because of knee tendinitis, never that he "couldn't move".
You are a waste of time, since you clearly never saw tennis in 2008...

You stop making up history by trying to claim Nadal's prime was at 21.

[Rust_Cohle]

Good luck finding someone who thinks Nadal was better on clay/grass during 2011-2020 than he was in 2008.

You'll find plenty of people if you look outside your echo chamber that claims Nadal's prime was at 21. And what a prime it was to last all of a year before he apparently turned into an old man who couldn't move anymore at 22, wow, absolute GOAT.

Well I've never been in an "echo chamber", because Federer was the most popular tennis player on forums, not Nadal.
And please stop making things up, I said Nadal lost speed because of knee tendinitis, never that he "couldn't move".

2008 = knee tendinitis escalated, eventually requiring cortisone shots during 2009 AO
2012 = Hoffa Syndrome, unable to play the 2012 US Open and 2013 AO
So Nadal's speed took TWO hits, losing speed 2008-09 and again 2012-13.

Of course Nadal still beat Djokovic in 2013 and beyond, but Djokovic would have an advantage athletically because this wasn't the 2008 version of Nadal.
Anyway, you are a waste of time, since you clearly never saw tennis in 2008...

Nadal never beat Novak on hardcourt GS after 2013, that is a damning stat.

[Rust_Cohle]

To any non-tennis fans reading this thread, what the Fed/Nadal copers are saying in basketball terms is "LeBron only surpassed Kobe because Kobe got old."

Even Federer/Nadal admit Djokovic is the goat, there really isn't any argument anymore against that. It's weird what the insane Fedal fans try to grab on to.

[DirtyDez]

That's patently false, you're trying to rewrite history. Nadal won more Slams after 2011 than before. And Federer was 27 years old and in his prime in 2008. But I wonder what happened around 2008 that caused Federer to stop being as dominant, maybe two young generational talents that started to come into their own, hmm.

I'm stating facts, 2004-2008 Nadal moved like Alcaraz or faster, and once he lost that speed it gave Djokovic an advantage in their most physical encounters.

How about the fact that in 2008 Djokovic was only 20 and nowhere near his prime? You're basically saying that a prime Federer lost a bit of speed and everything changed lol. Did you ever think about the fact that the only reason Fed had a winning record against Djokovic early on was because he was in his prime and Djokovic was a teenager?

Nadal Up thru 2010 actually moved like an alien. He won the Aussie, Wimbledon and his first US Open that year.
.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUobmFkYWwgZmVkZXJlciBhdXN0cmFsaWFuIG9wZW4gMjAwOSBwb2ludA%3D%3D

[Doctor MJ]

To any non-tennis fans reading this thread, what the Fed/Nadal copers are saying in basketball terms is "LeBron only surpassed Kobe because Kobe got old."

Even Federer/Nadal admit Djokovic is the goat, there really isn't any argument anymore against that. It's weird what the insane Fedal fans try to grab on to.

I'd just ask that people keep in mind that it's never all the fans of a particular players that have the most extreme position, just some of them.

Fed's my fave. Best at hitting the ball, best to watch, possibly the most able to dominate in all eras, but I would favor Nole for both peak and career over him.

[schnakenpopanz]

I think the status of any of them to be considered as the GOAT is widely to he hard competition they gave to each other.
The game changes so fast with all the analytics and science involved.
It is nowhere possible to compare impact, success even if there is an 5 or 10 year gap between the active peak of players.
So saying the peak of x is better becuase of the age gap is misleading.

[EmpireFalls]

To any non-tennis fans reading this thread, what the Fed/Nadal copers are saying in basketball terms is "LeBron only surpassed Kobe because Kobe got old."

Even Federer/Nadal admit Djokovic is the goat, there really isn't any argument anymore against that. It's weird what the insane Fedal fans try to grab on to.

I'd just ask that people keep in mind that it's never all the fans of a particular players that have the most extreme position, just some of them.

Fed's my fave. Best at hitting the ball, best to watch, possibly the most able to dominate in all eras, but I would favor Nole for both peak and career over him.

Don’t see how you could possibly make a peak argument for Djokovic over Federer when, in Djokovic’s very own peak, 30 year old Fed was a MP away from going 3-2 against him in Slams.

[Doctor MJ]

Even Federer/Nadal admit Djokovic is the goat, there really isn't any argument anymore against that. It's weird what the insane Fedal fans try to grab on to.

I'd just ask that people keep in mind that it's never all the fans of a particular players that have the most extreme position, just some of them.

Fed's my fave. Best at hitting the ball, best to watch, possibly the most able to dominate in all eras, but I would favor Nole for both peak and career over him.

Don’t see how you could possibly make a peak argument for Djokovic over Federer when, in Djokovic’s very own peak, 30 year old Fed was a MP away from going 3-2 against him in Slams.

I think you can find many different slices of competition that can be used to make arguments in opposing directions. People make an argument for peak Nadal over Fed on grass because he won that one Wimbledon finals over Fed, for example. In your specific case, you're saying Fed had a higher peak because he almost didn't lose more than he won against Djokovic while playing at an age that - as of Fed/Rafa/Djoker/Serena - isn't necessarily over the hill.

Honestly I'm not going to call you crazy for favoring Fed, but no, I'm afraid your argument doesn't really resonate with me.

[EmpireFalls]

I'd just ask that people keep in mind that it's never all the fans of a particular players that have the most extreme position, just some of them.

Fed's my fave. Best at hitting the ball, best to watch, possibly the most able to dominate in all eras, but I would favor Nole for both peak and career over him.

Don’t see how you could possibly make a peak argument for Djokovic over Federer when, in Djokovic’s very own peak, 30 year old Fed was a MP away from going 3-2 against him in Slams.

I think you can find many different slices of competition that can be used to make arguments in opposing directions. People make an argument for peak Nadal over Fed on grass because he won that one Wimbledon finals over Fed, for example. In your specific case, you're saying Fed had a higher peak because he almost didn't lose more than he won against Djokovic while playing at an age that - as of Fed/Rafa/Djoker/Serena - isn't necessarily over the hill.

Honestly I'm not going to call you crazy for favoring Fed, but no, I'm afraid your argument doesn't really resonate with me.

Well help me understand the peak argument for Djokovic then. Nothing about his best year exceeds 2006 Federer’s. Importantly, Federer’s 2004-2007 sustained peak dominance easily clears any 3 or 4 year swathe of Djokovic’s career due to his underperformance from 2012-2014.

And why the H2H thing is important is that Federer had MPs on the best/second best US Open version of Djokovic and beat one of the best Roland Garros version of him that year too (2011), then beat him at Wimbledon in 2012 as well - this being a few years past his peak, and certainly declined from those heights as well.

[maxpower8888]

Don’t see how you could possibly make a peak argument for Djokovic over Federer when, in Djokovic’s very own peak, 30 year old Fed was a MP away from going 3-2 against him in Slams.

I think you can find many different slices of competition that can be used to make arguments in opposing directions. People make an argument for peak Nadal over Fed on grass because he won that one Wimbledon finals over Fed, for example. In your specific case, you're saying Fed had a higher peak because he almost didn't lose more than he won against Djokovic while playing at an age that - as of Fed/Rafa/Djoker/Serena - isn't necessarily over the hill.

Honestly I'm not going to call you crazy for favoring Fed, but no, I'm afraid your argument doesn't really resonate with me.

Well help me understand the peak argument for Djokovic then. Nothing about his best year exceeds 2006 Federer’s. Importantly, Federer’s 2004-2007 sustained peak dominance easily clears any 3 or 4 year swathe of Djokovic’s career due to his underperformance from 2012-2014.

And why the H2H thing is important is that Federer had MPs on the best/second best US Open version of Djokovic and beat one of the best Roland Garros version of him that year too (2011), then beat him at Wimbledon in 2012 as well - this being a few years past his peak, and certainly declined from those heights as well.

https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

Djokovic has the highest elo rating of all time, higher than Fed's peak. elo takes into account the strength of your competition. 2007 Fed only comes in at #5 on that list. Nadal and Djokovic were barely even a thing in 2007. Your boy Fed made a name for himself beating up on the likes of Roddick and Hewitt before Nadal and Djokovic came around.

[-Luke-]

Don’t see how you could possibly make a peak argument for Djokovic over Federer when, in Djokovic’s very own peak, 30 year old Fed was a MP away from going 3-2 against him in Slams.

I think you can find many different slices of competition that can be used to make arguments in opposing directions. People make an argument for peak Nadal over Fed on grass because he won that one Wimbledon finals over Fed, for example. In your specific case, you're saying Fed had a higher peak because he almost didn't lose more than he won against Djokovic while playing at an age that - as of Fed/Rafa/Djoker/Serena - isn't necessarily over the hill.

Honestly I'm not going to call you crazy for favoring Fed, but no, I'm afraid your argument doesn't really resonate with me.

Well help me understand the peak argument for Djokovic then. Nothing about his best year exceeds 2006 Federer’s. Importantly, Federer’s 2004-2007 sustained peak dominance easily clears any 3 or 4 year swathe of Djokovic’s career due to his underperformance from 2012-2014.

And why the H2H thing is important is that Federer had MPs on the best/second best US Open version of Djokovic and beat one of the best Roland Garros version of him that year too (2011), then beat him at Wimbledon in 2012 as well - this being a few years past his peak, and certainly declined from those heights as well.

Is Federer 2006 really the best peak compared to Djokovic, Nadal or other Federer seasons? Sure, his dominance was impressive. But his best opponents were 19/20 year old Nadal, Roddick and legends like Baghdatis, Kiefer, Nalbandian, Ljubičić or the corpse of Tim Henman.