OT: Djokovic one match away from Calendar Grand Slam

[Blazers-1977]

Nole is the GOAT. But he's been the GOAT for a while. The quality of his grand slam wins eclipse that of Roger who won most of his slams against relative bums before Djokovic and Nadal showed up.

Federer won 3 in 2007, when Nadal had already established himself as clearly the best clay court player in the world and clearly number 2 overall. That main difference between the 07 and 08 Wimbolden Finals is Federer had a down year in 2008. If Federer was at 2007 Form in 2008, he would have won 3 majors that year just like he did in 04/06/07

The only reason Nadal leads the all time matchup between him and Federer is that 16 of those 40 games were played on clay while only 4 were played on grass. Per surface this is how it goes:

Hard Court: Federer leads 11-9
Grass: Federer Leads 3-1
Clay: Nadal leads 14-2

[FinnTheHuman]

The only reason Nadal leads the all time matchup between him and Federer is that 16 of those 40 games were played on clay while only 4 were played on grass. Per surface this is how it goes:

Hard Court: Federer leads 11-9
Grass: Federer Leads 3-1
Clay: Nadal leads 14-2

I don't get your argument. Most of the tennis throughout the year is played on hard court and clay, which is reflected in their H2H stats. There's literally only Wimbledon for grass, no 1000 Masters tournaments, and a couple of 500 tournaments that are only relevant because they're the warmup for Wimbledon. So yea, it wasn't any special circumstance that made them play only 4 matches on grass, because that's what modern tennis is about: hard court and clay. You can't assume Nadal wouldn't work on his game on grass if there were more tournaments to play, you could say he did what was the most intelligent and rational thing to do: to be as good as he is on clay and hard court, and have little care for the least relevant surface.

Anyway, Djokovic has easily been the GOAT for a long time, the guy holds almost every relevant record in that race.

[UcanUwill]

Is he better than Roger Federer was?

[mixerball]

you did this thread just to jinx him

[Sgt Major]

Is he better than Roger Federer was?

Yeah. Rafa too.

Federer is behind both of them.

[FinnTheHuman]

Is he better than Roger Federer was?

Djokovic holds all the relevant individual records out there. Djokovic leads Federer head-to-head 27–23. Djokovic leads Federer 13–6 in finals and 11–6 in Grand Slam matches. So I don't see how a case could be made for Federer to be as good as Novak.

Tennis is an individual sport, so the numbers are brutally honest, there's no way to point at teammates for dragging players down or pulling them up, so the GOAT discussion is fairly simple compared to team sports like basketball.

[rzzzzz]

The Joker literally stole two grand slam titles from Roger. A US Open and a Wimbledon where Roger had multiple championship points on his racquet to serve out, and theJoker burst through at the end. No doubting this guy’s greatness. BUT:

I’m old enough to remember what the sport was before Lendl took advantage of the new big headed graphite racquets to hit nothing but massive top spin from the baseline, and change Tennis into Ping Pong. No more serve and volley. Fleet coordination was lot less important. Soon the game became a lot less fun to play and a lot less interesting to watch. Kind of like what baseball would degenerate into if they let batters used those metal/poly bats that you see in softball. Running up the score, eliminating the value of playing the field when instead all you want is a bunch of big beaters.

[Dr Aki]

Only done twice before, by Rod Laver, but more than 50 years ago. Incredible feat.

And Laver did it when the slams were grass on 3 of the 4 surfaces. What Novak is trying to accomplish is a first - grass, clay, and hardcourt. It would be the greatest accomplishment ever in tennis. Modern equivalents would be Warriors finishing the job in 16 or the Pats in 07.

I think Medvedev has a chance. I'd give it like 25%. If there is one Slam that Novak falters in for some reason, it's the US Open.

that's because there weren't hard court surfaces in the 60s, the first hard court grand slam was 1978

that's like penalising nba players in the 60s for not shooting 3s, because the 3pt line didn't exist

rod laver had a huge trunk of a left arm and actually won his first calendar grand slam as an amateur in 62 (the open era started the year after in 1963)

[Dr Aki]

Can you elaborate why he's an a.....e, because Western media demonizes him like they did Lendl??? Do you live with him, did you spend any time alone with him so you know that from the experience I am pretty sure he's loved and respected in the other countries outside of the Western Hemisphere He pooped at Federer's and Nada's party, owned both of them head to head and he's on the brink to cement the Goat status , haters gonna hate

djokovic is an anti-vaxxer, but other than that, i don't think the media demonises him all that much

he's just not as marketable as federer or nadal, because he plays brick wall defensive tennis

[Dr Aki]

The Joker literally stole two grand slam titles from Roger. A US Open and a Wimbledon where Roger had multiple championship points on his racquet to serve out, and theJoker burst through at the end. No doubting this guy’s greatness. BUT:

I’m old enough to remember what the sport was before Lendl took advantage of the new big headed graphite racquets to hit nothing but massive top spin from the baseline, and change Tennis into Ping Pong. No more serve and volley. Fleet coordination was lot less important. Soon the game became a lot less fun to play and a lot less interesting to watch. Kind of like what baseball would degenerate into if they let batters used those metal/poly bats that you see in softball. Running up the score, eliminating the value of playing the field when instead all you want is a bunch of big beaters.

yeh, there's no variety in play styles any longer

racquet tech and modern strength training has all but eliminated the serve and volley style from every surface, and the grass wear and tear patterns show that it's non viable any longer even at wimbledon

[bamheat]

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

[Johnny Firpo]

While djoker is great, he will never be as loved as federer or nadal because djokovic is a ****

Not even necessarily him, it's his family. And since he is Serbian, he kind of always had to put up with them, family bond is everything for them, but in his family, literally everyone is a huge a-hole, outside his wife. Going back to 15 years, his father, mother, and even grandfather said things in the Serbian newspapers that are huge no-no's if you want to become an international icon. That played a big part, and probably the biggest reason why he has virtually no chance to reach MJ, Gretzky or Phelps unquestionable, undisputed GOAT status.

The most he can settle for, is being the consensus most accomplished. With that said, this year's level of competition is absolute trash, and EASILY worse than the Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick pre-Djoker/Nadal era was for Roger. Easily, like not even close. 2011 Djoker would straight set 2021 Djoker, and yet, he could complete it now. The reason is pretty obvious, still a great accomplishment if he does it.

[carlquincy]

I liked him. Too bad I'm no longer supporting him as he's an antivax.

hes easily the goat though. Led in all possible statistics

[pontius]

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.

[FinnTheHuman]

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 started playing and 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, and let us who understand the essence of sports talk sports while you keep quiet.

[Jabroni Lames]

Rod Laver: “None of these guys could have played back in my era.”

[Johnny Firpo]

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.

[Johnny Firpo]

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.

[pontius]

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

1) Finals ELO - > strongest opponent makes the final - > the opponent with the higher ELO is the better player
2) Just because Nadal and Djokovic played a ton of matches against each just goes to show they were that much better than everybody else. It is the same as saying the Lakers ain't **** because they faced mostly the Celtics in the finals.

The same arguments being used against Djokovic were being used against Fed 15 years ago. Back then people criticized him because Sampras was retired and he played against Roddick and old man Agassi, i.e. a weaker era than the era of the previous GOAT player with more GSs.

[FinnTheHuman]

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