Topic: Wimbledon 2017

[ChrisOH]

Rafa is the greatest clay courter ever. There. I said it again for you. However, as an all round player Novak Djokovic is quite clearly the better player. Look at every other record going and Novak is superior. And GOAT contenders in my view need to be excellent on all surfaces.

The reason he is not even in the discussion as greatest all round player is because a certain man named Roger Federer has dominated everywhere on every surface against every player other than Rafael Nadal on clay.

Take away Federer's greatest slam and he'd still have 11 slams. More than twice that of the number if you took away Nadal's greatest slam.

I'm sorry, but to have 5 slams on non clay surfaces, only one since he was 25, rules him out of the all round greatest discussion in my opinion.

My opinion is to truly be a GOAT contender you have to be good on all surfaces. Rafa Nadal hasn't got to even a QF on Wimbledon's grass since he was 25.

He hasn't dominated a single slam over a long period of time other than the French. It hasn't even been like he dominates everyone other than the big 4. He has one Australian Open and has went out at the QFs more times than he even reached the final.I've already mentioned his Wimbledon record. And his US Open record is similar to that at the Australian.

He is a fantastic player. But he is too dependent on one surface in my opinion to be considered a GOAT contender.

I'm not arsed about point scoring between Novak and Nadal. I'm just pointing out that it's reasonable that the greatest clay court player ever is regarded as one of the best players ever, because, yanno, playing on clay is part of tennis.

[JD.]

I'm not arsed about point scoring between Novak and Nadal. I'm just pointing out that it's reasonable that the greatest clay court player ever is regarded as one of the best players ever, because, yanno, playing on clay is part of tennis.

I never said he wasn't one of the best ever. I said he isn't in the conversation as THE best ever. Just my opinion.

[Yorkykopite]

Martina Hingis is great. In so many ways.

[ggcc14]

Martina Hingis is great. In so many ways.

Yeah i'd love to smash a bag in with her and talk tennis.

[Redcap]

Rafa is the greatest clay courter ever. There. I said it again for you. However, as an all round player Novak Djokovic is quite clearly the better player. Look at every other record going and Novak is superior. And GOAT contenders in my view need to be excellent on all surfaces.

The reason he is not even in the discussion as greatest all round player is because a certain man named Roger Federer has dominated everywhere on every surface against every player other than Rafael Nadal on clay.

Take away Federer's greatest slam and he'd still have 11 slams. More than twice that of the number if you took away Nadal's greatest slam.

I'm sorry, but to have 5 slams on non clay surfaces, only one since he was 25, rules him out of the all round greatest discussion in my opinion.

My opinion is to truly be a GOAT contender you have to be good on all surfaces. Rafa Nadal hasn't got to even a QF on Wimbledon's grass since he was 25.

He hasn't dominated a single slam over a long period of time other than the French. It hasn't even been like he dominates everyone other than the big 4. He has one Australian Open and has went out at the QFs more times than he even reached the final.I've already mentioned his Wimbledon record. And his US Open record is similar to that at the Australian.

He is a fantastic player. But he is too dependent on one surface in my opinion to be considered a GOAT contender.

"1 slam since he was 25" seems to be a rather arbitrary determination if a player's greatness. Everyone knows Nadal's style was always going to lead him to drop off later in his career. How many players that have won a French Open can you think of that won five slams on other surfaces? For that matter, how many players that thrived on other surfaces can you think of that have won a single French Open.

Consider the following:

Bjorn Borg only won 5 non-clay slams - all of them at Wimbledon
Andre Agassi only won 7 non-clay slams - and 8 in total
Pete Sampras never won a French Open
Boris Becker never won a French Open
John McEnroe never won a French Open
And speaking of preference for a single surface - your preferred candidate, Novak Djokovic, has only won 6 non-Plexicushion slams - if you really want to get into surfaces.

As for end of year tournaments.. you realise that this is just a masters tournament for the top 8 players to gain some end of year points, right? It's only marginally more prestigious than an Indian Wells, for example.

Don't get me wrong, Djokovic is also a candidate for GOAT, but this idea that Nadal is not a contender because he won too many French Opens, even though he won 5 non-clay slams and was runners up in another 8 finals, is ludicrous. People seem to separate players into two categories - clay courters and non-clay courters. Nadal clearly defies this categorisation.

IMO there are really only 3 candidates for GOAT - Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. But it's Federer, then a space, then Nadal and Djokovic.

[Shaved Crossbar]

IMO there are really only 3 candidates for GOAT - Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. But it's Federer, then a space, then Nadal and Djokovic.

It should be Federer, Djokovic, then a space, then Nadal.

Djokovic's sheer domination in 2011-12 and then 2015-16, against a more stacked field than Federer faced in 03-07, is remarkable. It elevates him above Nadal for me.

[ggcc14]

Shaved Crossbar I can only imagine you started watching tennis in the last 3-4 years. I find it funny anyone would put Novak infront of Rafa but to suggest their is a sizable gap between their abilities is hysterical.

[kcbworth]

Roger Federer, what a guy

[Red-Soldier]

IMO there are really only 3 candidates for GOAT - Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. But it's Federer, then a space, then Nadal and Djokovic.

I totally disagree.

Rod Laver is in the equation and Bjorn Borg too. 

Don't forget, Borg retired at just 26!!  Imagine Federer, Nadal or Djokovic retiring at the age, what would their records have been?  Borg won 41% of the Grand Slam singles tournaments he entered, won both the French and Wimbledon for three consectutive years, and won three grand slams without losing a set.  He's also second in the match win rate of the Open Era.

Laver has won a record 200 singles titles and was banned from playing grand slams for five years during the Closed Era.  He'd have probably won around 23 grand slams if that wasn't the case.  He's also the only player to have ever won the calendar grand slam twice.

[Petadroli]

Roger Federer, what a man. Truly astonishing how he won Wimbledon for a record 8th time - and the first time since Borg that somebody wins it without dropping a set. The draw did open up for him with Nadal, Djokovic, Wawrinka and Murray departing early, but I don't think he would have lost against any of these players - he's the very best on a grass court and he also beat Berdych, Nishikori, Wawrinka and Nadal at the Australian Open this year. Federer was above all others in this tournament and absolutely deserved this win.

Regarding the Greatest of all Time, I don't think there is any way you can argue around Federer. He is the greatest, with the most Grand Slams, the most weeks as number one, the most Masters wins and the second most tournament title wins ever - and he still has time to catch Connors.

For me, the second best has to be Nadal, followed by Sampras and then Djokovic. Rod Laver certainly deserves to be in this discussion, but we simply can't tell how good he could have been if he wasn't forbidden to compete. And what's that discussion about surfaces and Nadal only winning 5 non-clay GS? He's the best clay court player ever, and if there was a second clay court Grand Slam, he would probably have 20 GS titles already. Although it could probably be argued if there was a second grass court Grand Slam, Federer would be at around 25 GS now. The only thing that speaks against Nadal in the whole argument about who's second best is his 141 weeks ranked #1. Djokovic has 223 weeks and therefore almost two years more and Sampras has 286 weeks.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

I totally disagree.

Rod Laver is in the equation and Bjorn Borg too. 

Don't forget, Borg retired at just 26!!  Borg won 41% of the Grand Slam singles tournaments he entered, won both the French and Wimbledon for three consectutive years, and won three grand slams without losing a set.  He's also second in the match win rate of the Open Era.

Laver has won a record 200 singles titles and was banned from playing grand slams for five years during the Closed Era.  He'd have probably won around 23 grand slams if that wasn't the case.  He's also the only player to have ever won the calendar grand slam twice.

I feel like Sampras has to be in the conversation too. I think he's under-rated because he wasn't the most aesthetically pleasing player to watch, perhaps lacked a consistent rivalry throughout his career (Agassi to an extent I guess) and played at a time when tennis was generally less popular, but anyone with 14 Grand Slams to their name twelve years apart surely has to be in the conversation.

[elsewhere]

It should be Federer, Djokovic, then a space, then Nadal.

Djokovic's sheer domination in 2011-12 and then 2015-16, against a more stacked field than Federer faced in 03-07, is remarkable. It elevates him above Nadal for me.

I will have to disagree with you. Nadal has definitely accomplished much more than Djokovic (15>12) and he has won 6 of them are non clay grand slams. It feels likes many tennis fans sometimes forget how great Nadal is as a tennis player and they think he is a great clay player but an above average in other surfaces. No, he is up there right after Federer as the 2nd best ever.

[Red-Soldier]

Rod Laver certainly deserves to be in this discussion, but we simply can't tell how good he could have been if he wasn't forbidden to compete.

It's easy, you look at the titles Laver won before and after the five years, number and duration.  Then you calculate the probability of how many he would've won during that 5 year period.

I believe the general consensus is that Laver would've won a total 23/24 grand slams if he was playing during that period.

Here's what Federer thinks:

The Australian great completed Calendar Grand Slam twice and won 200 career titles. 'Competing for the Laver Cup will be something truly special,' said Federer. 'When you win a title that the great Rod Laver also won, it’s wonderful to know that you’ve shared in those same experiences and that same legacy.

But the Laver Cup is even more magical. It would be a tremendous privilege to lift a trophy that features a real part of Rod’s incredible history. For me, Rod Laver is the greatest player of all time. I’m thrilled that the Laver Cup creates a legacy that future generations can also cherish. 'Every win, of course, had its significance during my career but to see them represented collectively so beautifully all these years later is extremely special,' Laver said.

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/news/news/Roger_Federer/44894/roger-federer-laver-is-the-goat-it-will-be-a-great-wimbledon-/

[Red-Soldier]

I feel like Sampras has to be in the conversation too. I think he's under-rated because he wasn't the most aesthetically pleasing player to watch, perhaps lacked a consistent rivalry throughout his career (Agassi to an extent I guess) and played at a time when tennis was generally less popular, but anyone with 14 Grand Slams to their name twelve years apart surely has to be in the conversation.

I agree also, he was superb.

[JD.]

Roger Federer, what a man. Truly astonishing how he won Wimbledon for a record 8th time - and the first time since Borg that somebody wins it without dropping a set. The draw did open up for him with Nadal, Djokovic, Wawrinka and Murray departing early, but I don't think he would have lost against any of these players - he's the very best on a grass court and he also beat Berdych, Nishikori, Wawrinka and Nadal at the Australian Open this year. Federer was above all others in this tournament and absolutely deserved this win.

Regarding the Greatest of all Time, I don't think there is any way you can argue around Federer. He is the greatest, with the most Grand Slams, the most weeks as number one, the most Masters wins and the second most tournament title wins ever - and he still has time to catch Connors.

For me, the second best has to be Nadal, followed by Sampras and then Djokovic. Rod Laver certainly deserves to be in this discussion, but we simply can't tell how good he could have been if he wasn't forbidden to compete. And what's that discussion about surfaces and Nadal only winning 5 non-clay GS? He's the best clay court player ever, and if there was a second clay court Grand Slam, he would probably have 20 GS titles already. Although it could probably be argued if there was a second grass court Grand Slam, Federer would be at around 25 GS now. The only thing that speaks against Nadal in the whole argument about who's second best is his 141 weeks ranked #1. Djokovic has 223 weeks and therefore almost two years more and Sampras has 286 weeks.

I genuinely don't see the argument for Nadal over Djokovic. Everything other than number of French Opens is in Novak's favour. Rafa has won 10 French Opens. TEN. Incredible. Best clay courter ever. And yet despite winning 10 slams at one event is only 3 slams ahead of Novak.

For me, the fact that Novak came in to an era where Nadal and Federer were already established and managed to win as much as they did is staggering and adds to his greatest in my view.

My opinion is that Federer is the greatest of all time and Novak is second.

[JD.]

I will have to disagree with you. Nadal has definitely accomplished much more than Djokovic (15>12) and he has won 6 of them are non clay grand slams. It feels likes many tennis fans sometimes forget how great Nadal is as a tennis player and they think he is a great clay player but an above average in other surfaces. No, he is up there right after Federer as the 2nd best ever.

How has he definitely accomplished MUCH MORE than Novak?

More Australian Opens - Novak.
More Wimbledons - Novak.
More US Opens - Tied (for now).

More weeks at number 1 - Novak.
More Masters 1000s - Novak.
More Year End Titles - Novak.
Head to Head Record - Novak.

How exactly has Rafa achieved much more than Novak exactly? Because he has a slight edge in slam count due to dominance of one slam?

Edit: Just so I am clear. I think Nadal is brilliant. One of the top 10 ever. But he isn't clearly the second best in my view. He is too depend on one surface to be the best ever. Although, you could say the same for the likes of Laver to be fair to Rafa as back then I am sure all the slams were played on grass. That's why for me, Federer and Novak are best two ever by quite a distance.

[Old No7]

Many average players have made it to the top 10 in the world rankings

your own sentence makes you look daft, if you're reaching the top 10 then you're better than average

[Petadroli]

I genuinely don't see the argument for Nadal over Djokovic. Everything other than number of French Opens is in Novak's favour. Rafa has won 10 French Opens. TEN. Incredible. Best clay courter ever. And yet despite winning 10 slams at one event is only 3 slams ahead of Novak.

For me, the fact that Novak came in to an era where Nadal and Federer were already established and managed to win as much as they did is staggering and adds to his greatest in my view.

My opinion is that Federer is the greatest of all time and Novak is second.

What about Pete Sampras?

I think Djokovic and Nadal are pretty much head to head at the moment with Nadal having the slight edge because of his GS record (although Djokovic has the #1 longer, but later to that). They are about the same if you look at the number of tournament wins (73:68 for Nadal). Also, I think one of the reasons why people rate Nadal higher than Djokovic is the surroundings of his ascent. Nadal wrestled the dominance of tennis away from the greatest player of all time. He beat him in his backyard in 5 sets in probably the best tennis match ever. He won all 4 GS titles before Federer and Djokovic. He had the biggest opponent possible and he overcame him. His downfall was largely because of persistent injuries. Djokovic on the other hand didn't dominate until 2015 and 2016 - when Nadal was injured most of the time, Federer had injuries and his problems with ageing, Murray was injured a lot around that time too. That also explains the huge difference in the #1 stats. Djokovic just didn't have to wrestle it away from an all-time great like Nadal.

That all being said, it really depends on the future performance of the two, because they are still active and both able to win many more tournaments.

[cissesbeard]

What about Pete Sampras?

I think Djokovic and Nadal are pretty much head to head at the moment with Nadal having the slight edge because of his GS record (although Djokovic has the #1 longer, but later to that). They are about the same if you look at the number of tournament wins (73:68 for Nadal). Also, I think one of the reasons why people rate Nadal higher than Djokovic is the surroundings of his ascent. Nadal wrestled the dominance of tennis away from the greatest player of all time. He beat him in his backyard in 5 sets in probably the best tennis match ever. He won all 4 GS titles before Federer and Djokovic. He had the biggest opponent possible and he overcame him. His downfall was largely because of persistent injuries. Djokovic on the other hand didn't dominate until 2015 and 2016 - when Nadal was injured most of the time, Federer had injuries and his problems with ageing, Murray was injured a lot around that time too. That also explains the huge difference in the #1 stats. Djokovic just didn't have to wrestle it away from an all-time great like Nadal.

That all being said, it really depends on the future performance of the two, because they are still active and both able to win many more tournaments.

agree with that - for a while it seemed like there was only Nadal who could beat Roger in the biggest games.
Sampras is one of the greatest without doubt, I just found him boring to watch - possibly because there wasn't the same kind of rivalry between him and another player. Federer, nadal, djokovic and murray have all pushed each other to become better players - they maintained an insane level of tennis for many years.

[JD.]

What about Pete Sampras?

I think Djokovic and Nadal are pretty much head to head at the moment with Nadal having the slight edge because of his GS record (although Djokovic has the #1 longer, but later to that). They are about the same if you look at the number of tournament wins (73:68 for Nadal). Also, I think one of the reasons why people rate Nadal higher than Djokovic is the surroundings of his ascent. Nadal wrestled the dominance of tennis away from the greatest player of all time. He beat him in his backyard in 5 sets in probably the best tennis match ever. He won all 4 GS titles before Federer and Djokovic. He had the biggest opponent possible and he overcame him. His downfall was largely because of persistent injuries. Djokovic on the other hand didn't dominate until 2015 and 2016 - when Nadal was injured most of the time, Federer had injuries and his problems with ageing, Murray was injured a lot around that time too. That also explains the huge difference in the #1 stats. Djokovic just didn't have to wrestle it away from an all-time great like Nadal.

That all being said, it really depends on the future performance of the two, because they are still active and both able to win many more tournaments.

What about Sampras? A great player no doubt. But not as good as Novak in my view. I still don't think Novak gets as much credit as he should. He came in to an era where the greatest clay courter of all time existed and the greatest player of all time existed and rose to their levels.

Also, Nadal didn't really wrestle the dominance away from Roger. Roger just got old and when he turned 29 he started slowing a bit. Rafa won 3 slams in one year once. 2010. He didn't beat Roger in any of those slams, so not really wrestling it away from Roger did he? Then, as Rafa Nadal was in his absolute peak, three slams won in a row, 24 years of age, ready to dominate, what happened? Novak Djokovic happened. 

Novak Djokovic looked a peak Rafa Nadal straight in the eye and lay the beating on him. Over and over and over again and stopped Rafa doing what looked like a formality at the end of 2010 and going on to dominate tennis as Federer was about to enter his 30s. Novak was the one who truly wrestled dominance. And not only did he do it from one all time great. He did it from two. And he did what no man had ever done before or has done since and crushed Nadal mentally. Prime Rafa couldn't handle prime Djokovic.

As for Novak not dominating until 2015/16. Well he won 3 slams in 2011 and the first of 2012. I'd call that dominating. In fact 4 slams out of 5 was a run Rafa only achieved once in his career and never even got close to doing it again. And guess who stepped up right in the middle of that and stopped him? Novak Djokovic. 2010 is peak Rafa. He was never better before or after. And he couldn't handle Novak.

Edit: Again I feel the need to make this clear. Rafa is an all time great. A tier 1 legend. But so is Novak Djokovic. And in my view, Novak is a better all round player than Rafa.

[Shaved Crossbar]

Also, I think one of the reasons why people rate Nadal higher than Djokovic is the surroundings of his ascent. Nadal wrestled the dominance of tennis away from the greatest player of all time. He beat him in his backyard in 5 sets in probably the best tennis match ever. He won all 4 GS titles before Federer and Djokovic. He had the biggest opponent possible and he overcame him. Djokovic on the other hand didn't dominate until 2015 and 2016 - when Nadal was injured most of the time, Federer had injuries and his problems with ageing, Murray was injured a lot around that time too. That also explains the huge difference in the #1 stats.

Djokovic just didn't have to wrestle it away from an all-time great like Nadal.

Yeah, you're right, Djokovic had to wrestle it away from 2 all time greats, not just one. Nadal had won the last 3 slams of 2010, Federer had won the Australian open and lost to the eventual losing finalists in 2 quarters, and one semi, of the other slams.

Then Novak Djokovic came out with a 41 match, 7 tournament win streak to start the season, beating Fed en route to victory in Australia, and losing only to one of Federer's greatest performances at Roland Garros. He then went straight to Wimbledon and won (beating Nadal in the final - his play in the first two sets was scary), won another two tournaments, retired from a 3rd in the final with injury, then went to the US Open and beat Roger in the semi and then Rafa in the final. Injuries then set in and he lost another 3 games but the guy had a 70-6 year regardless, in the era of Roger and Rafa at their peaks.

The next year he beat Rafa in a 5h 53 Aussie Open final, before reaching the Roland Garros final on the verge of holding all four slams at once; something neither Roger nor Rafa have done, then or since. He was actually turning the match around in his favour before a rain delay allowed Rafa to recharge and come back the next day to finish it in 4 sets. That Federer won the following Wimbledon is only evidence that at 30, Federer wasn't far off the all conquering dominant Roger of 3-4 years prior.

So no, Djokovic was already dominant in 2011-12, winning 4 of 5 slams, beating Roger on the way to 2 of them and Rafa in 3 of the finals. It was at this stage, already, that Agassi and McEnroe had him up there with the all time greats, with Rafa calling it the greatest season he'd ever seen (bear in mind that Rafa played through those 4 successive seasons of 3,2,3,3 slams from Roger). And he did all this with Roger just off peak, and Rafa in his absolute prime. There's a strong argument to say that Federer probably still was at peak then, he was just getting beaten by better players.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

What about Sampras? A great player no doubt. But not as good as Novak in my view. I still don't think Novak gets as much credit as he should. He came in to an era where the greatest clay courter of all time existed and the greatest player of all time existed and rose to their levels.

Also, Nadal didn't really wrestle the dominance away from Roger. Roger just got old and when he turned 29 he started slowing a bit. Rafa won 3 slams in one year once. 2010. He didn't beat Roger in any of those slams, so not really wrestling it away from Roger did he? Then, as Rafa Nadal was in his absolute peak, three slams won in a row, 24 years of age, ready to dominate, what happened? Novak Djokovic happened. 

Novak Djokovic looked a peak Rafa Nadal straight in the eye and lay the beating on him. Over and over and over again and stopped Rafa doing what looked like a formality at the end of 2010 and going on to dominate tennis as Federer was about to enter his 30s. Novak was the one who truly wrestled dominance. And not only did he do it from one all time great. He did it from two. And he did what no man had ever done before or has done since and crushed Nadal mentally. Prime Rafa couldn't handle prime Djokovic.

As for Novak not dominating until 2015/16. Well he won 3 slams in 2011 and the first of 2012. I'd call that dominating. In fact 4 slams out of 5 was a run Rafa only achieved once in his career and never even got close to doing it again. And guess who stepped up right in the middle of that and stopped him? Novak Djokovic. 2010 is peak Rafa. He was never better before or after. And he couldn't handle Novak.

So many contradictions in your argument it's untrue. Rafa didn't wrestle dominance from a 27-29 year old Federer, but Djokovic did from a 30-34 year-old Federer with two Slams to his name in the period 2010-16?

I agree with you that the difference between them isn't as wide as some would have you believe, but that's simply because Rafa is more of a global superstar and, as Petradoli pointed out, he arrived on the scene first. He beat Federer at Wimbledon at a time when he seemed unbeatable, having won 5 in a row and also winning in 2009. They're both great players but Rafa will last longer in the memory as a tennis player.

You claim that his dominance on clay makes him a lesser 'GOAT' than Djokovic and yet he's one Australian Open away from being the first man to win two of each of the Slams (4 sets in a final once, 5 sets in a final there twice - he's been incredibly close to doing so). Federer and Djokovic both struggled big-time to get over the line at Roland Garros and more than likely won't do so again. In the same way that Nadal's best surface is clay, Djokovic's is hard and Federer's is grass. Djokovic has 6 Australian Open's (half of his overall tally) and Federer has 8 Wimbledon's but that doesn't undermine their overall achievement in the same way Rafa having 10 French Open's doesn't his. They're pretty damn good on all surfaces and their records stand up to that.

[peterstone]

Martina Hingis is great. In so many ways.

You said it

Always liked her

 

[Petadroli]

What about Sampras? A great player no doubt. But not as good as Novak in my view. I still don't think Novak gets as much credit as he should. He came in to an era where the greatest clay courter of all time existed and the greatest player of all time existed and rose to their levels.

Also, Nadal didn't really wrestle the dominance away from Roger. Roger just got old and when he turned 29 he started slowing a bit. Rafa won 3 slams in one year once. 2010. He didn't beat Roger in any of those slams, so not really wrestling it away from Roger did he? Then, as Rafa Nadal was in his absolute peak, three slams won in a row, 24 years of age, ready to dominate, what happened? Novak Djokovic happened. 

Novak Djokovic looked a peak Rafa Nadal straight in the eye and lay the beating on him. Over and over and over again and stopped Rafa doing what looked like a formality at the end of 2010 and going on to dominate tennis as Federer was about to enter his 30s. Novak was the one who truly wrestled dominance. And not only did he do it from one all time great. He did it from two. And he did what no man had ever done before or has done since and crushed Nadal mentally. Prime Rafa couldn't handle prime Djokovic.

As for Novak not dominating until 2015/16. Well he won 3 slams in 2011 and the first of 2012. I'd call that dominating. In fact 4 slams out of 5 was a run Rafa only achieved once in his career and never even got close to doing it again. And guess who stepped up right in the middle of that and stopped him? Novak Djokovic. 2010 is peak Rafa. He was never better before or after. And he couldn't handle Novak.

Edit: Again I feel the need to make this clear. Rafa is an all time great. A tier 1 legend. But so is Novak Djokovic. And in my view, Novak is a better all round player than Rafa.

Come on, you're making it sound like Nadal didn't conquer Federer's backyard 2008... That's when he wrestles the #1 away from Federer, when he beat him at the French, at Wimbledon and the following Australian Open. In 2009, after his AO win, he had his first big injury problems and wasn't even able to defend his Wimbledon crown. After that injury-riddled 2009 he had a brilliant comeback year 2010. After 2010 it began to turn in Djokovic' favour, before it was very much only Nadal. And I am not saying 2011 wasn't a brilliant year for Djokovic and that he didn't wrestle it away from Nadal. But after 2011 he won three GS in three years. He dominated one year (2011) before 2015. And in 2015 and 2016 he didn't have to deal with a prime Nadal, a prime Federer, or even a prime Murray for that matter. Wawrinka beat him in two GS finals.

[JD.]

You claim that his dominance on clay makes him a lesser 'GOAT' than Djokovic and yet he's one Australian Open away from being the first man to win two of each of the Slams (4 sets in a final once, 5 sets in a final there twice - he's been incredibly close to doing so). Federer and Djokovic both struggled big-time to get over the line at Roland Garros and more than likely won't do so again. In the same way that Nadal's best surface is clay, Djokovic's is hard and Federer's is grass. Djokovic has 6 Australian Open's (half of his overall tally) and Federer has 8 Wimbledon's but that doesn't undermine their overall achievement in the same way Rafa having 10 French Open's doesn't his. They're pretty damn good on all surfaces and their records stand up to that.

Except it isn't the same.

Rafa's tally of slams is so heavily dominated by one slam. But not only that, he regularly gets knocked out in slams early. You claim Federer and Novak struggled to get over the line in France. Well yeah, they were playing the single most difficult match in the history of the sport. Rafa Nadal at the French Open. Particularly Roger because his style match up is just awful against Nadal with the high bouncing ball to the back hand.

My opinion, and I don't really see how you could argue with it, is that Federer and Novak are most consistent at Slams which aren't their best.

Novak's best is AO. Fine. But at the French he still has 4 finals and has reached at least the SF 8 times.
At Wimbledon he has won it 3 times and has made at least the semi finals 7 times.
At USO he has won it twice but reached at least the SF every year for the last decade.

Federer's record of reaching at least the SF of slams during his peak doesn't even need explaining. He is the most consistent major player of all time.

Compare those with Rafa's record outside of his favourite major. Only 5 SFs reached at the AO. Five at Wimbledon. And again 5 at the USO.

He quite clearly has not been as consistent at majors outside of his favourite one as the other two have been. That's backed up by only one non French since he was 25.

And again I will emphasise this. I believe Rafa is one of the best ever. Top 10 not in doubt in my view. However, he just does not come close to having the all round all surface game of the other 2.

[JD.]

Come on, you're making it sound like Nadal didn't conquer Federer's backyard 2008... That's when he wrestles the #1 away from Federer, when he beat him at the French, at Wimbledon and the following Australian Open. In 2009, after his AO win, he had his first big injury problems and wasn't even able to defend his Wimbledon crown. After that injury-riddled 2009 he had a brilliant comeback year 2010. After 2010 it began to turn in Djokovic' favour, before it was very much only Nadal. And I am not saying 2011 wasn't a brilliant year for Djokovic and that he didn't wrestle it away from Nadal. But after 2011 he won three GS in three years. He dominated one year (2011) before 2015. And in 2015 and 2016 he didn't have to deal with a prime Nadal, a prime Federer, or even a prime Murray for that matter. Wawrinka beat him in two GS finals.

If Novak's 2011 and 2012 start of winning 4 slams out of 5 do not count then that means that Rafa Nadal never dominated tennis then. As he achieved this only once and guess who it was who stepped up during it? Novak.

Nadal may have beat Federer in his prime. No doubt. But he didn't completely turn the tide from Federer dominance to Nadal dominance. By the time Rafa went on his run in 2010, Federer obviously wasn't peak 04-07 Federer. Whereas Novak stepped up during Rafa's absolutely peak and not only shifted it to a 50/50 footing as Nadal did during the later Federer dominance years but completely turned it round to a Novak dominated run.

[Petadroli]

Except it isn't the same.

Rafa's tally of slams is so heavily dominated by one slam. But not only that, he regularly gets knocked out in slams early. You claim Federer and Novak struggled to get over the line in France. Well yeah, they were playing the single most difficult match in the history of the sport. Rafa Nadal at the French Open. Particularly Roger because his style match up is just awful against Nadal with the high bouncing ball to the back hand.

My opinion, and I don't really see how you could argue with it, is that Federer and Novak are most consistent at Slams which aren't their best.

Novak's best is AO. Fine. But at the French he still has 4 finals and has reached at least the SF 8 times.
At Wimbledon he has won it 3 times and has made at least the semi finals 7 times.
At USO he has won it twice but reached at least the SF every year for the last decade.

Federer's record of reaching at least the SF of slams during his peak doesn't even need explaining. He is the most consistent major player of all time.

Compare those with Rafa's record outside of his favourite major. Only 5 SFs reached at the AO. Five at Wimbledon. And again 5 at the USO.

He quite clearly has not been as consistent at majors outside of his favourite one as the other two have been. That's backed up by only one non French since he was 25.

And again I will emphasise this. I believe Rafa is one of the best ever. Top 10 not in doubt in my view. However, he just does not come close to having the all round all surface game of the other 2.

Aren't these numbers in Djokovic' favour heavily inflated by the fact that two of four Grand Slams are on his favourite surface? Like I said, if there was a second clay court Grand Slam, Nadal would probably be the GOAT and if there was a second Grass court Grand Slam, Federer would be the uber-GOAT ( ).
I get your consistency argument, but I think the surface argument is a bit silly.

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

Well he's won 3 since January 2010, so you have been waiting a while. Bold prediction too, because he'd won 10 and lost 8 of the last 19 finals at that stage. You probably meant 2 haha.

yeah i'm guessing a bit. I think it was the US open when he proved me wrong

[Petadroli]

If Novak's 2011 and 2012 start of winning 4 slams out of 5 do not count then that means that Rafa Nadal never dominated tennis then. As he achieved this only once and guess who it was who stepped up during it? Novak.

Nadal may have beat Federer in his prime. No doubt. But he didn't completely turn the tide from Federer dominance to Nadal dominance. By the time Rafa went on his run in 2010, Federer obviously wasn't peak 04-07 Federer. Whereas Novak stepped up during Rafa's absolutely peak and not only shifted it to a 50/50 footing as Nadal did during the later Federer dominance years but completely turned it round to a Novak dominated run.

That's not what I said, not at all. I even said quite a few times that 2011 was a brilliant year for Djoko. But after 2011, he simply didn't dominate until 2015. Between 2012 and 2014, Nadal won four GS in three years - and Djokovic won three. Between 2010 and 2016 Federer won a single GS, he was not at his prime at all.

He didn't dominate the tennis circus like Federer did, no. That has a lot to do with him having injuries over and over again though. I think the argument we are having right now is more something like: when did Nadal have his prime years? I say it was between 2008 - 2010, winning 6 our of 12 available GS, with Federer hovering up 4. After that he was pushed over by Djokovic for a single year. Djokovic and Federer both never managed to win a French Open final against Nadal - his nimbus of invincibility still lives.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Except it isn't the same.

Rafa's tally of slams is so heavily dominated by one slam. But not only that, he regularly gets knocked out in slams early. You claim Federer and Novak struggled to get over the line in France. Well yeah, they were playing the single most difficult match in the history of the sport. Rafa Nadal at the French Open. Particularly Roger because his style match up is just awful against Nadal with the high bouncing ball to the back hand.

My opinion, and I don't really see how you could argue with it, is that Federer and Novak are most consistent at Slams which aren't their best.

Novak's best is AO. Fine. But at the French he still has 4 finals and has reached at least the SF 8 times.
At Wimbledon he has won it 3 times and has made at least the semi finals 7 times.
At USO he has won it twice but reached at least the SF every year for the last decade.

Federer's record of reaching at least the SF of slams during his peak doesn't even need explaining. He is the most consistent major player of all time.

Compare those with Rafa's record outside of his favourite major. Only 5 SFs reached at the AO. Five at Wimbledon. And again 5 at the USO.

He quite clearly has not been as consistent at majors outside of his favourite one as the other two have been. That's backed up by only one non French since he was 25.

And again I will emphasise this. I believe Rafa is one of the best ever. Top 10 not in doubt in my view. However, he just does not come close to having the all round all surface game of the other 2.

First bold: Take the Australian Open away and Djokovic has six Slams. That's only one more than Nadal without the French Open. Hardly a world of difference. And as pointed out by Petradoli, Djokovic is favoured by having two hard court Slams, in the same way Lever was favoured by having three grass court Slams in his day. And yet - as of now - Djokovic still has three fewer Slams than Rafa.

Second bold: Same applies to Rafa at Wimbledon against Federer (losing twice in the final), and Rafa at the Australian Open against Djokovic (losing once in the final) then? Again, your argument is a bit weird. Rafa's strengths used to favour Fed/Djoko but not visa versa.

Third bold: To call it 'only' five semi-finals is a bit strange. 5+ semi-finals at every Slam shows pretty good consistency to me, I mean how many players in history have done that? Fair enough, Djokovic and Federer are more consistent, but you could argue so is Andy Murray and he's not in the conversation for GOAT. So many of Nadal's early exits had a lot to do with injury too.

Personally, all the signs point towards Nadal and Djokovic being roughly on a par in terms of pure sporting achievement (but Rafa slightly ahead due to having three more Slams), but I don't think you can entirely separate that from who is the bigger star and subsequently will be remembered as having a wider influence. It's difficult to measure but Nadal is surely the bigger superstar of the two and his rivalry with Federer elevated to the sport to a level it had probably never reached beforehand. Djokovic and to a lesser extent Murray added to that magnificently but they'll always feel a bit like the latecomers to the party.

[Ray K]

So, take away their best Slam and you're left with:
Fed 11
Laver 7
Sampras 7
Djokovic 6
Emerson 6
Nadal 5
Borg 5

I don't think many people would complain if you had Fed and Laver #1 and #2 in whichever order you prefer, given Laver's 5 year absence from slams. (Laver also won 6 Doubles Slams  ).
But it's just not defensible to put Nadal or Djokovic ahead of Federer.

[stewil007]

Serious lack of Murray in these discussions.............

<stage exit left>

[ggcc14]

Serious lack of Murray in these discussions.............

<stage exit left>

[wheresnemeth]

your own sentence makes you look daft, if you're reaching the top 10 then you're better than average

That would mean that Everton must be a better than average team to have finished 7th in the premier league last year.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

That would mean that Everton must be a better than average team to have finished 7th in the premier league last year.

On a national or international scale, Everton are certainly a better than average team.

Even on a Premier League scale they arguably are because average would be 10th or 11th.

There's hundreds of pro tennis players at any one stage. Very few who make it into the top ten are average by any measure really.

[JD.]

Serious lack of Murray in these discussions.............

<stage exit left>

I know you are joking but Andy is one of the best ever grass court players. Think he has the third highest win percentage in history on grass.

And he is probably in the top 25 players of all time. He's just been the most insanely unlucky player ever to come up against three of the top 10 ever at the same time. If he even had to deal with one fewer of them he'd probably have 5 or 6 slams. Shame for him he didn't break through 10 years later because if he had he'd be likely to win 10+ slams. Although there is the argument that playing in this era has pushed him to be the best he can be.

[Petadroli]

I know you are joking but Andy is one of the best ever grass court players. Think he has the third highest win percentage in history on grass.

And he is probably in the top 25 players of all time. He's just been the most insanely unlucky player ever to come up against three of the top 10 ever at the same time. If he even had to deal with one fewer of them he'd probably have 5 or 6 slams. Shame for him he didn't break through 10 years later because if he had he'd be likely to win 10+ slams. Although there is the argument that playing in this era has pushed him to be the best he can be.

Murray won two GS against Djokovic, but he lost 8 GS finals against Federer and Djokovic. But that's the case for all the others too: Federer lost 9 GS finals against Djokovic and Nadal. Djokovic lost 5 finals against Nadal and Federer, plus two against Murray and two against Wawrinka. Nadal lost 6 finals against Djokovic and Federer and one against Wawrinka. Murray just didn't reach enough finals and if he did, his score is 2:8 against Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. Most of the time he was eliminated at the semi final stage by one of those three (or lately Wawrinka).

[Crosby Nick]

Interesting debate, I think Nadal's achievements will live longer in history, just because no one will match those numbers for a single Slam (Federer at Wimbledon maybe!).

By the way the memory has gone blank again, has Djokovic beaten Federer at Wimbledon? It must be a fairly short list but who has beaten Roger there? The way Nadal ended his dominance in 2008 was seriously impressive in fairness.

[Gerry Attrick]

Interesting debate, I think Nadal's achievements will live longer in history, just because no one will match those numbers for a single Slam (Federer at Wimbledon maybe!).

By the way the memory has gone blank again, has Djokovic beaten Federer at Wimbledon? It must be a fairly short list but who has beaten Roger there? The way Nadal ended his dominance in 2008 was seriously impressive in fairness.

Jiri Novak, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Tim Henman, Mario Ancic, Rafa Nadal, Tomas Berdych, Jo Wilfried Tsonga, Sergiy Stakhovsky, Novak Djokovic (x2) and Milos Raonic have all beaten him at Wimbledon.

[Petadroli]

Jiri Novak, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Tim Henman, Mario Ancic, Rafa Nadal, Tomas Berdych, Jo Wilfried Tsonga, Sergiy Stakhovsky, Novak Djokovic (x2) and Milos Raonic have all beaten him at Wimbledon.

He competed 19 times, so there is bound to be 11 losses - and four of those were before he even won a single Grand Slam in his wild early years. In finals he only lost once to Nadal and twice to Djokovic.