Johnny Firpo wrote:FinnTheHuman wrote:bamheat wrote: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
What? It aligned since Djokovic and Federer have the 2nd most duels in the open era, 50, where Djokovic leads 27-23, right after Djokovic-Nadal with 58 matches where Djokovic leads 30-28.
Djokovic has played in the hardest era in tennis, against the 2nd and 3rd best of all time, Federer was lucky play in one of the weakest eras of tennis pre-Djokovic and pre-Nadal and racked up a lot of GS and Masters wins before Djoko and Nadal entered their primes. Federer is literally a tier below Nadal, and two tiers below Djokovic.
But hey, Federer's game is the most aesthetic, but I guess you should follow ballet instead of sports if you're into aesthetics that much.
Nonsense. They are all in the same tier, standing above the second tier, which has Sampras and probably Borg. Also, absolutely not true that Roger played in a different era. They played in the same era, and any advantage Roger had during the Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin years, he clearly still got the worse end of it overall by staying as long as he did, still making Grand Slam finals at 35, 36, 37, 38, so he could lose to an in prime Djokovic or Nadal. Also, the Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, etc. years were MILES ahead of this year's pitiful level of competition that he faced. Nadal at like 60%, was the best player he played all year, by far. And I'm sticking to this even if Medvedev wins. Djokovic is nowhere near to his 2011 level, and yet he is about to CYGS. This alone should tell us everything to know about this year's field, which is likely the weakest in modern tennis history.
Both Nadal and Federer have played this year, and Nadal looked not so far from his prime form. Federer literally played 8 years as a pro while Djokovic was a kid, Fed turned pro in 1998 and Djoko turned pro in 2006. So 8 years without Djoko and Nadal but with Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, etc. is somehow comparable to like half a year without Nadal and Federer, but with Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas etc?
And you're taking away from Djokovic that he's been able to keep his body healthy, and that's not a coincidence, he's kept his body slim throughout his whole career, sacrificed his potential strength in serve, forehand, backhand etc. in order to save his health, while Nadal and Federer were always more muscular and were constantly hitting >200km/h serves and destructive forehand winners.
If he bulked up, he could've had a shorter but even stronger prime with more strength, but since he opted for durability instead, you're penalizing him for still playing like he's not far from his prime while being 34? It is on Nadal that he's completely fallen apart in the health department and was at 60% of himself this year as you say, same as Federer, it shouldn't be used as an excuse, but as one of the legitimate reasons why Novak is better than them, and why he'll have 3-7 slams more than them when it's all said and done.
Federer won 5 grand-slams since 2010 in total, and he was in his 29-34 year old period from 2010 to 2015, so it was his prime, but he was simply a tier below Nadal, and 2 tiers below Djokovic as I said, so he kept losing to them in his prime anyway.
Yes, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer could arguably be put in a tier of their own above everybody else, but inside that tier, there are sub-tiers that go:
Djokovic
Nadal
Federer