Is Novak Djokovic the Greatest Tennis Player of contemporary Era?

[OMB]

---

Tennis: Novak Djokovic eyes elite 52-year-old landmark at French Open final

Novak Djokovic will eye a 52-year-old record when he takes on Stefanos Tsitsipas in the final of Roland Garros on Sunday. Djokovic is on the verge of becoming the first man in 52 years to win all four Grand Slam titles twice if he manages to defeat Tsitsipas on Sunday.

A win for the Serbian ace will take him alongside Rod Laver and Roy Emerson to have conquered the four Grand Slams more than once. Even the herculean duo of Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer have failed to do touch the landmark.

The milestone is so rare that it hasn’t been achieved since 1969 when Laver completed his second calendar Grand Slam.

Furthermore, Djokovic is also on the cusp of moving just one behind the record of 20 Grand Slam titles held by Nadal and Federer.

Djokovic, who played an epic semi-final clash against Nadal, is, however, not worried about physical or emotional fatigue from the match. He had defeated 13-time champion Nadal in what was a match for ages.

"It's not the first time that I play an epic semi-final in a Grand Slam and then I have to come back in less than 48 hours and play finals," said the 34-year-old.

"My recovery abilities have been pretty good throughout my career."

The 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 (7/4), 6-2 triumph gave Djokovic the honour of being the only man to have beaten Nadal in Paris more than once, having first achieved it in the 2015 quarter-finals."

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I suppose you could make an argument for it, but for me Nadal and Federer are still slightly ahead as they are still challenging in the same tournaments despite being probably 10 years past their prime.

 

[street cricketer]

I'm just going to be salty and say no.

 

[Firebat]

I'm a big Nadal fan, but I would begrudgingly say yes. He's the most complete player. Came into the era of prime Nadal vs Federer dominance and broke through to challenge them both.

The only man who can beat Federer on grass, Nadal on clay and is better than them both on hard court.

By the time he finishes his career, he will have the most Grand Slams (though he will not face as much competition as Federer has to in the latter stages of his career).

 

[Firebat]

I suppose you could make an argument for it, but for me Nadal and Federer are still slightly ahead as they are still challenging in the same tournaments despite being probably 10 years past their prime.

Djokovic is a year younger than Nadal.

 

[finalfantasy7]

Djokovic is a year younger than Nadal.

correct, djok will go down as history as currently the best player ever, with fed/nadal battling out for no.2/no.3.

Djok kept his conditioning the best - he has another 3-5 slams in him

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Djokovic is a year younger than Nadal.

I might be wrong, but didn't he come onto the scene quite a bit after Nadal and Federer? In sport age isn't just measured by years, but also career span. Tennis especially you tend to get players who burn very bright for about a decade then fade. Pete Sampras is an example of this.

Actually Federer, Nadal and Djokavic are almost freaks of nature in that they seem to have dominated for so long, but I'm pretty sure that Federer and Nadal had a spell of winning grand slams before Djokavic emerged.

 

[Firebat]

I might be wrong, but didn't he come onto the scene quite a bit after Nadal and Federer? In sport age isn't just measured by years, but also career span. Tennis especially you tend to get players who burn very bright for about a decade then fade. Pete Sampras is an example of this.

Actually Federer, Nadal and Djokavic are almost freaks of nature in that they seem to have dominated for so long, but I'm pretty sure that Federer and Nadal had a spell of winning grand slams before Djokavic emerged.

Yes you’re right, when Novak won the Aus Open 2008 at 20 years-old, he broke the streak of the 11 previous Grand Slams being won by Nadal or Federer. That in my opinion makes his emergence into the elite 3 all the more impressive.

 

[OldWarHorse]

Dont want to jinx him yet.. win today would be massive

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes you’re right, when Novak won the Aus Open 2008 at 20 years-old, he broke the streak of the 11 previous Grand Slams being won by Nadal or Federer. That in my opinion makes his emergence into the elite 3 all the more impressive.

Agreed, but it also makes it even more impressive that the older guys are still slugging for the same grand slams when ordinary champions would have faded by now. These are three ATGs without a doubt, but will Djokavic still be at this level in 4 years time?

 

[Firebat]

Agreed, but it also makes it even more impressive that the older guys are still slugging for the same grand slams when ordinary champions would have faded by now. These are three ATGs without a doubt, but will Djokavic still be at this level in 4 years time?

Federer's first Grand Slam was in 2003 and last was 2018. Nadal's first was 2005, last was 2020.

Considering Novak won his first Grand Slam in 2008, for him to maintain his level as long as Nadal and Federer did/are doing, he'd still have to be winning Slams in 2023. By 2023, he will be well on top of the Grand Slam list and would have matched Nadal and Federer's longevity at the Grand Slam-winning level.

Perhaps in the next few years his competition will be less than what Federer has to deal with in these latter stages (as I said earlier), but that does not cancel out the first 18 Grand Slams being won during the most competitive era in tennis history against two prime ATGs (+ Murray for a period)

Of course all 3 are ATGs, in fact the 3 greatest ever. But I would argue the completeness of Djokovic's game and the statistical superiority he will have by the end of his career puts him just marginally ahead of the other 2.

(As I write this, Tsitsipas is a set and a break up, and this post could look pretty silly in a couple hours)

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Federer's first Grand Slam was in 2003 and last was 2018. Nadal's first was 2005, last was 2020.

Considering Novak won his first Grand Slam in 2008, for him to maintain his level as long as Nadal and Federer did/are doing, he'd still have to be winning Slams in 2023. By 2023, he will be well on top of the Grand Slam list and would have matched Nadal and Federer's longevity at the Grand Slam-winning level.

Perhaps in the next few years his competition will be less than what Federer has to deal with in these latter stages (as I said earlier), but that does not cancel out the first 18 Grand Slams being won during the most competitive era in tennis history against two prime ATGs (+ Murray for a period)

Of course all 3 are ATGs, in fact the 3 greatest ever. But I would argue the completeness of Djokovic's game and the statistical superiority he will have by the end of his career puts him just marginally ahead of the other 2.

(As I write this, Tsitsipas is a set and a break up, and this post could look pretty silly in a couple hours)

Inshallah.

Grand slam wins spanning 15 years for both Federer and Nadal. I think that is what keeps them ahead in my personal opinion, that is hard to fathom in the modern era.

Maybe Djokavic can do the same but he's not there yet.

 

[Firebat]

Inshallah.

Grand slam wins spanning 15 years for both Federer and Nadal. I think that is what keeps them ahead in my personal opinion, that is hard to fathom in the modern era.

Maybe Djokavic can do the same but he's not there yet.

That's fair enough. He is not there yet and my argument is based on speculation of the future, and of course could turn out to be wrong. But the way Novak took apart Nadal in that semi-final in Rafa's backyard, at the age of 34 and 13 years after his start at the elite level, makes me think he's got a lot left in the tank. There are 2 hard court Slams a year, and he won the Aus Open 5 months ago with ease.

 

[OldWarHorse]

Massive Massive win..what a player. To make yet another remarkable comeback, this was a big one

 

[Manunited18]

Definitely the GOAT

 

[dildilpak]

Inshallah.

Grand slam wins spanning 15 years for both Federer and Nadal. I think that is what keeps them ahead in my personal opinion, that is hard to fathom in the modern era.

Maybe Djokavic can do the same but he's not there yet.

He is more than there, he is the GOAT... Federer for all his greatness, could never complete on clay. And take away his phenomenal record on clay, Nadal is kinda the most average of the 3 on hard/grass court. So yeah, Djokovic!

On a related note if longevity is the sole criterion, is Tendulkar your GOAT cricketer?

 

[MP2011]

Massive Federer fan but it's difficult to look past Joker as greatest ever. Kind of tenacity and mental toughness he has shown in his entire career after being down and out is unparalleled.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Era of bottlers

 

[bones]

I suppose you could make an argument for it, but for me Nadal and Federer are still slightly ahead as they are still challenging in the same tournaments despite being probably 10 years past their prime.

Total rubbish.

Djokovic is about 5 years past his prime too. Given that Federer reached the Wimbledon final of 2019, how much over his prime is he?

This statement, Djokovic is dominating because the other two are past their prime is total rubbish because Djokovic has been beating them for years. He beat Federer in 2008 when Fed was at his prime. He crushed Nadal time after time in that 2011-2012 period when Nadal was 24/25, at the peak of his powers.

The last decade or so, it's isn't a big 3 I'm afraid, like someone on twitter posted yesterday it is the Djokovic dynasty. He has in the last decade won most slams than Nadal and Federer combined. He has more 1000s than them combined, more WTFs, more weeks at no 1. He held all 4 slams at the same time. He has beaten both in their own backyard.

There is a debate, but almost all the stats point to him being the greatest. If he wins Wimble, there won't be any dispute.

 

[bones]

These are three ATGs without a doubt, but will Djokavic still be at this level in 4 years time?

It doesn't matter if he is still at this level in 4 years. He has already done enough to put him down as the GOAT. Yes he is one slam behind, but he has so many other things going for him that it more than compensates for the 1 slam. If Djokovic wins Wimbledon, there will absolutely no disputing his status at the greatest in the Open Era.

 

[bones]

Federer's first Grand Slam was in 2003 and last was 2018. Nadal's first was 2005, last was 2020.

But I would argue the completeness of Djokovic's game and the statistical superiority he will have by the end of his career puts him just marginally ahead of the other 2.

(As I write this, Tsitsipas is a set and a break up, and this post could look pretty silly in a couple hours)

So now that Djokovic has taken pretty much all but 1 record in the sport, Federer and Nadal fans are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons that he isn't? Longevity?

You say marginally ahead of the other 2, well he's already marginally ahead of them. If he wins 2/3 more slams and that's going to be very very difficult at his age, then he'll bury any argument Nadal and Federer fans have.

 

[OMB]

GOAT as in he will be alongside Rod Laver and Roy Emerson and is kind of immortal in record books. Federer and Nadal will be forgotten after few decades.
When I started watching tennis, McEnroe and Bjorg were considered ATG and now hardly any kid of today would say the same about them. Same for Pete Sampras .

 

[topspin]

Aisam ul Haq Qureshi > Djokovic

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Total rubbish.

Djokovic is about 5 years past his prime too. Given that Federer reached the Wimbledon final of 2019, how much over his prime is he?

This statement, Djokovic is dominating because the other two are past their prime is total rubbish because Djokovic has been beating them for years. He beat Federer in 2008 when Fed was at his prime. He crushed Nadal time after time in that 2011-2012 period when Nadal was 24/25, at the peak of his powers.

The last decade or so, it's isn't a big 3 I'm afraid, like someone on twitter posted yesterday it is the Djokovic dynasty. He has in the last decade won most slams than Nadal and Federer combined. He has more 1000s than them combined, more WTFs, more weeks at no 1. He held all 4 slams at the same time. He has beaten both in their own backyard.

There is a debate, but almost all the stats point to him being the greatest. If he wins Wimble, there won't be any dispute.

He got outclassed at Wimbledon by a Scot who hates England. That's your GOAT for you.

Federer and Nadal FTW.

 

[bones]

He got outclassed at Wimbledon by a Scot who hates England. That's your GOAT for you.

Federer and Nadal FTW.

Is that your best argument? Qute petty and childish.

Yes he was soundly beaten by Murray in that final. But look at their careers now. What about Djokovic and the times he's outclassed Nadal and Federer?

Djokovic has beaten Nadal and Federer on their favourite turf. Neither of them has beaten Djokovic on his turf.

 

[dildilpak]

A thing about Federer is that his stats are padded by wins in pre-Nadal & pre-Djokovic era, when he hadnt the greatest of opponents so to speak. Since 2010 (& he was still in his prime at 28 back then), he has won only 5 grand slams, which shows that he has been thoroughly owned by Nadal & Djokovich in the last decade.

Nadal’s wins though have been heavily padded by clay court wins (he has only 7 Grand slams if you take out his French open wins which include 3 post 2010). In other slams, he was dominated by Djokovich in the last decade.

Djokovich though has played both Nadal & Fed in their primes & still has superior H2H against both of them, which clearly shows that he is the best of the lot. One can hate him & romanticize the dominance of Fed-Nadal (mainly because the media wanted to exploit that narrative & the Europeans dont like Serbs in general), but noone can dispute hard cold facts.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Is that your best argument? Qute petty and childish.

Yes he was soundly beaten by Murray in that final. But look at their careers now. What about Djokovic and the times he's outclassed Nadal and Federer?

Djokovic has beaten Nadal and Federer on their favourite turf. Neither of them has beaten Djokovic on his turf.

Yes that is certainly my best argument. Djoko got thrashed by an England hating Scot who never won another grand slam in his career.
You can pad round this all you want, won't change that it happened.

 

[bones]

Yes that is certainly my best argument. Djoko got thrashed by an England hating Scot who never won another grand slam in his career.
You can pad round this all you want, won't change that it happened.

You should just stop now because you'll continue to make yourself look foolish.

Andy Murray said in light humour that he would be supporting "anyone but England" when Tim Henman once interviewed him. He was poking fun at the fact Scotland failed to make the World Cup finals. You have to see the interview to understand "England hating" is as far from the truth as you'll get.

Who's padding around anything? You're the one who's had to go as far back as 2013 to pick out a final Novak lost. What about the fact he's won 4 titles at Wimbledon since? Or the fact in 2015 Djokovic thrashed Federer who had thrashed Murray the round before?

 

[bones]

A thing about Federer is that his stats are padded by wins in pre-Nadal & pre-Djokovic era, when he hadnt the greatest of opponents so to speak. Since 2010 (& he was still in his prime at 28 back then), he has won only 5 grand slams, which shows that he has been thoroughly owned by Nadal & Djokovich in the last decade.

Nadal’s wins though have been heavily padded by clay court wins (he has only 7 Grand slams if you take out his French open wins which include 3 post 2010). In other slams, he was dominated by Djokovich in the last decade.

Djokovich though has played both Nadal & Fed in their primes & still has superior H2H against both of them, which clearly shows that he is the best of the lot. One can hate him & romanticize the dominance of Fed-Nadal (mainly because the media wanted to exploit that narrative & the Europeans dont like Serbs in general), but noone can dispute hard cold facts.

I agree with most of your points but diagree on a couple of things. Federer can't do anything about who he faced off in that early period of dominance. He can only beat what's in front of him and to be honest it wasn't in the same league as what the other 2 have faced.

Nadal's record is skewed heavily by Roland Garros, but why should that be a negative? Roland Garros is a slam just like the others and carries the same weight. It's also the most demanding physically.

 

[dildilpak]

I agree with most of your points but diagree on a couple of things. Federer can't do anything about who he faced off in that early period of dominance. He can only beat what's in front of him and to be honest it wasn't in the same league as what the other 2 have faced.

Nadal's record is skewed heavily by Roland Garros, but why should that be a negative? Roland Garros is a slam just like the others and carries the same weight. It's also the most demanding physically.

You are right in that Federer can play only whoever is in front of him, but cant help thinking that he might have not have been a legend he is now if he had worthy rivals back then. He definitely benefitted from the lull in the tennis world post Sampras retirement.

I dont intend to take anything from Nadal’s French open wins (don’t agree myself that Wimbledon should be considered superior to the other 3 slams which many do), but nonetheless my point was that Rafa wasnt really exceptional on other courts. Nole is obviously the more versatile of the three with wins over both on their preferred turf & superior overall H2H.

 

[dildilpak]

Yes that is certainly my best argument. Djoko got thrashed by an England hating Scot who never won another grand slam in his career.
You can pad round this all you want, won't change that it happened.

How do you then explain Federer losing to Djokovic from a position of 3 championship points on his own serve in a Wimbledon final? This happened too!

 

[topspin]

Yes that is certainly my best argument. Djoko got thrashed by an England hating Scot who never won another grand slam in his career.
You can pad round this all you want, won't change that it happened.

Well said, even Aisam-ul-haq Qureshi > Djokovic

 

[Kroll]

As a massive Federer fan, it pains me to say that Nole Djoker’s highest level is greater than both Fed’s and Nadal’s.

I’ve watched a lot of tennis over the years starting from the boring serve and volley slugfests featuring Sampras and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon.

I can say confidently he’s the best player ever. He’s definitely the best all surface player where he can be the top seed in all four slams.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You should just stop now because you'll continue to make yourself look foolish.

Andy Murray said in light humour that he would be supporting "anyone but England" when Tim Henman once interviewed him. He was poking fun at the fact Scotland failed to make the World Cup finals. You have to see the interview to understand "England hating" is as far from the truth as you'll get.

Who's padding around anything? You're the one who's had to go as far back as 2013 to pick out a final Novak lost. What about the fact he's won 4 titles at Wimbledon since? Or the fact in 2015 Djokovic thrashed Federer who had thrashed Murray the round before?

Just answer me one thing. Did Federer or Nadal ever lose a grand slam final to an England hating Scot? By the way, what would you expect Murray to say in front of an English tv audience? He voted for Scottish independence, actions speak louder than words.

 

[bones]

Just answer me one thing. Did Federer or Nadal ever lose a grand slam final to an England hating Scot? By the way, what would you expect Murray to say in front of an English tv audience? He voted for Scottish independence, actions speak louder than words.

Federer and Nadal haven't lost to Murray at Wimbledon, but they have lost to many players worse. Just from these last few posts I can see you don't follow much tennis so I'll ignore you from now.

 

[street cricketer]

Just answer me one thing. Did Federer or Nadal ever lose a grand slam final to an England hating Scot? By the way, what would you expect Murray to say in front of an English tv audience? He voted for Scottish independence, actions speak louder than words.

Moreover you can't take a tennis player who can't rock a bandana seriously can you..

Federer and Nadal rock it with style. Plain jane Djokovic can only dream

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Moreover you can't take a tennis player who can't rock a bandana seriously can you..

Federer and Nadal rock it with style. Plain jane Djokovic can only dream

Absolutely. You understand this perfectly, the real greats of tennis have always worn a bandana on occasion, this is an inarguable rite of passage in the game. Borg, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal...the torch has been passed down to legends of each age.

Not even sure why Djokavic even plays tennis if he can't wear a headband without looking like he's been in an accident. He should have played golf instead. I think he'd look fine wearing a cap or a sunhat.

 

[PetroDollars]

dont watch tennis, but grew up was a pete sampras fanatic, how comes hes not in the list of greats, he was soo good.

 

[bones]

dont watch tennis, but grew up was a pete sampras fanatic, how comes hes not in the list of greats, he was soo good.

He is a great, but not in the same league as the Big 3. He didn't win the French and didn't even come close.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

dont watch tennis, but grew up was a pete sampras fanatic, how comes hes not in the list of greats, he was soo good.

He was a fantastic talent, but don't think he was in love with the game. He shone for a short while then burned out pretty quickly. I think when he started losing his hair he started losing his mojo around the same time.

 

[bones]

He was a fantastic talent, but don't think he was in love with the game. He shone for a short while then burned out pretty quickly. I think when he started losing his hair he started losing his mojo around the same time.

Sampras won his first USO in 1990 and last in 2002. He didn't shone for a short while, he was the dominant player of the 90s. He also has a record that I will stand almost as long as Nadal's 13 RGs, he was year end no 1, 6 tims in a row.

You really should stop posting about tennis because you clearly don't know much about it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Sampras won his first USO in 1990 and last in 2002. He didn't shone for a short while, he was the dominant player of the 90s. He also has a record that I will stand almost as long as Nadal's 13 RGs, he was year end no 1, 6 tims in a row.

You really should stop posting about tennis because you clearly don't know much about it.

I stopped watching it around the time Sampras was rising, I remember him beating McEnroe en route to his first US Open title. Since then I just watch the odd game here and there so my stats may be a bit off. I do apologise for misleading anyone with inaccurate guesswork based on patchy memory. I won't post again without cross-referencing with google in future.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Djokovic is obviously a tennis great but he doesn’t stand test of time. His dominance came in a weak era relatively when the big 2 were declining.

Big question mark on Djokovic’s record is that his best period came when
Nadal and Federer were past their best. And forget those two but even guys like Murray, Roddick, Nalbandan, del Potro were over the hill.

Guys like Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas etc wouldn’t even break the top 20 of the 2000s era let alone hover in and around the top 5.

So yes Djoker is great but his dominance came in a weaker era.

 

[PetroDollars]

He is a great, but not in the same league as the Big 3. He didn't win the French and didn't even come close.

he was a mile ahead of anyone at that time, i wonder what would have happened if he was born 10 years later, the big 3 would have certainly motivated him to so better, we see it in all sports with ronaldo vs messi, who wouldnt have those goals and hungry without the other.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

he was a mile ahead of anyone at that time, i wonder what would have happened if he was born 10 years later, the big 3 would have certainly motivated him to so better, we see it in all sports with ronaldo vs messi, who wouldnt have those goals and hungry without the other.

Sampras had a more explosive style than any of the current big 3. My personal opinion is that he might not have had the grinding consistency or percentage success of Nadal and Djoko in particular, but on his day he would have the beating of both of them. He would just blow them away with sheer power.

Federer is a slightly different animal in that he is more about angles and timing than the other two, he really is an elegant player...but he would have got beat as well by Sampras at his peak.

 

[bones]

Djokovic is obviously a tennis great but he doesn’t stand test of time. His dominance came in a weak era relatively when the big 2 were declining.

Typical false information presented by Federer and Nadal fan boys. Djokovic has dominated for a decade, he’s been number for the longest in the open era smashing Federer’s record earlier this year and looks set to just continue piling on the weeks at no 1. You say he doesn’t stand the test of time – I say what on Earth are you on about?
You say his dominance came in a weak era, when Fed and Nadal were declining but there’s no truth to this either. Djokovic was beating Federer as early as 2008 in slams when Fed was 27/28ish. Is that the age where you are at your peak? Djokovic started to beat Nadal regularly and in slams in 2011, at the time he was 24 and Nadal was 25. Again, tell me is 24/25 an age when players are declined?

Big question mark on Djokovic’s record is that his best period came when
Nadal and Federer were past their best. And forget those two but even guys like Murray, Roddick, Nalbandan, del Potro were over the hill.
Guys like Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas etc wouldn’t even break the top 20 of the 2000s era let alone hover in and around the top 5.

There’s no question mark. Roddick and Nalbandian were Federer’s pigeons and in the generation before. Del Petro and Murray are roughly the same age as Djokovic but remain injured, he can’t do anything about that can he?
As for your opinion of the current young generation, where do I begin? They look ordinary because they’re playing 3 of the greatest of all time. In any other era they would have won slams by now.

So yes Djoker is great but his dominance came in a weaker era.

Has it ever occurred to you that Federer stopped dominating when Djokovic and Nadal became men? That he couldn’t live with them physically and often mentally?
Many think he’s already the greatest in the open era, but if he wins Wimbledon it’ll be the final nail in the coffin and put to bed any debate. There will be no records left to break.

 

[bones]

Sampras had a more explosive style than any of the current big 3. My personal opinion is that he might not have had the grinding consistency or percentage success of Nadal and Djoko in particular, but on his day he would have the beating of both of them. He would just blow them away with sheer power.

Sampras compared to today’s players was tame. Sampras’ average FH speed towards the end of his career was 70mph. We don’t have figures for when he was in his pomp but let’s assume it was about 71/72. The BH was significantly slower at 66mph. To put things into perspective Nadal’s average FH right now is about 78mph and Djokovic 77mph. On the BH both are 73mph. There’s no comparison, the game has moved on, the top 3 are more powerful and definitely more explosive off the ground. Find me a single Pete Sampras match where he is as explosive or powerful as Djokovic and Nadal were in last Friday’s RG SF. You won’t.
Sampras was a better server than either of them and would have had great chances on grass but given statistically both Djokovic and Nadal are up there with the greatest returners of all time, even on 90s grass he’d have a match.
Both Djokovic and Nadal are beating up on guys who has 10mph on Sampras off both wings and have been doing it for over a decade.

Federer is a slightly different animal in that he is more about angles and timing than the other two, he really is an elegant player...but he would have got beat as well by Sampras at his peak.

Federer only played Sampras once, when he was a kid and Sampras in the twilight of his career so we really don’t know how it would have gone. But Federer has a great serve himself and managed to eat up big servers throughout his career on return. So chances are he’d have beaten Sampras too.
It is very clear to everyone who watches the sport, the big 3 have taken the sport to a level never seen before. They would have eaten up former greats – these greatest have said so themselves. Statistically only Laver is above them but most of his career was in the amateur era so hence why he is often forgotten.

 

[OMB]

Sampras compared to today’s players was tame. Sampras’ average FH speed towards the end of his career was 70mph. We don’t have figures for when he was in his pomp but let’s assume it was about 71/72. The BH was significantly slower at 66mph. To put things into perspective Nadal’s average FH right now is about 78mph and Djokovic 77mph. On the BH both are 73mph. There’s no comparison, the game has moved on, the top 3 are more powerful and definitely more explosive off the ground. Find me a single Pete Sampras match where he is as explosive or powerful as Djokovic and Nadal were in last Friday’s RG SF. You won’t.
Sampras was a better server than either of them and would have had great chances on grass but given statistically both Djokovic and Nadal are up there with the greatest returners of all time, even on 90s grass he’d have a match.
Both Djokovic and Nadal are beating up on guys who has 10mph on Sampras off both wings and have been doing it for over a decade.

Federer only played Sampras once, when he was a kid and Sampras in the twilight of his career so we really don’t know how it would have gone. But Federer has a great serve himself and managed to eat up big servers throughout his career on return. So chances are he’d have beaten Sampras too.
It is very clear to everyone who watches the sport, the big 3 have taken the sport to a level never seen before. They would have eaten up former greats – these greatest have said so themselves. Statistically only Laver is above them but most of his career was in the amateur era so hence why he is often forgotten.

Laver like Bradman can never be forgotten. Nor can I forget the badboy McEnroe or Iceman Bjorg.
Between the McEnroe and Sampras era there was Stefan Edberg who was the leader of the pack and some odd brilliance from Becker and Agassi.
The issue was field of play was wide open in those days and even a Michael Chang or Goran could beat any of them on their day.

What makes the current big 3 ATG is their longevity. While all other previous greats retired or faded after few years, these guys just go on and on.
That is the only difference IMO.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Sampras compared to today’s players was tame. Sampras’ average FH speed towards the end of his career was 70mph. We don’t have figures for when he was in his pomp but let’s assume it was about 71/72. The BH was significantly slower at 66mph. To put things into perspective Nadal’s average FH right now is about 78mph and Djokovic 77mph. On the BH both are 73mph. There’s no comparison, the game has moved on, the top 3 are more powerful and definitely more explosive off the ground. Find me a single Pete Sampras match where he is as explosive or powerful as Djokovic and Nadal were in last Friday’s RG SF. You won’t.
Sampras was a better server than either of them and would have had great chances on grass but given statistically both Djokovic and Nadal are up there with the greatest returners of all time, even on 90s grass he’d have a match.
Both Djokovic and Nadal are beating up on guys who has 10mph on Sampras off both wings and have been doing it for over a decade.

Federer only played Sampras once, when he was a kid and Sampras in the twilight of his career so we really don’t know how it would have gone. But Federer has a great serve himself and managed to eat up big servers throughout his career on return. So chances are he’d have beaten Sampras too.
It is very clear to everyone who watches the sport, the big 3 have taken the sport to a level never seen before. They would have eaten up former greats – these greatest have said so themselves. Statistically only Laver is above them but most of his career was in the amateur era so hence why he is often forgotten.

Sampras was anything but tame. I don't know why you are giving me his FH speeds from towards the end of his career, presumably this sort of data manipulation was not around at his peak. Nadal and Djokavic are good at bludgeoning the ball from the baseline, and have tremendous speed around the ground, but in my view Sampras had not only great shots from the baseline, but he was also a fantastic player at the net. I would regard him as a better all round player than both at his peak, and I acknowledge that Djokovic is also a good all round player in his own robotic fashion. Put simply I think Sampras could have matched Djokavic for power, and would have the edge on nous and inventiveness. Even Tsitsipas was outfoxing the one paced Djoko before he ran out of steam and self belief.

 

[bones]

Sampras was anything but tame. I don't know why you are giving me his FH speeds from towards the end of his career, presumably this sort of data manipulation was not around at his peak.

I'm giving you speeds because they are facts. No one can argue with facts. There is no manipulation, I clearly pointed out that it was late in his career and so we can add slightly to it knowing he would have hit harder when younger.

in my view Sampras had not only great shots from the baseline, but he was also a fantastic player at the net. I would regard him as a better all round player than both at his peak

Nope, Sampras’ BH would have torn to shreds by Djokovic. On clay he would have been butchered, lucky to get a set against either of them and on hard courts he would be pinned in the corner. In an interview he actually said that would have been his biggest problem one that even Agassi couldn’t implement. How to deal with Nadal’s FH pinning him in his BH corner and Djokovic 2 hander doing the same. His return wouldn’t have been more than a bunt point starter in today’s game either. Any of the top 10 would be all over it now. The game has moved on from his time.

I acknowledge that Djokovic is also a good all round player in his own robotic fashion. Put simply I think Sampras could have matched Djokavic for power, and would have the edge on nous and inventiveness. Even Tsitsipas was outfoxing the one paced Djoko before he ran out of steam and self belief.

Djokovic is the most complete player there's ever been. You can't attack either wing and the only way to beat him is to hope he has an off day or to hit 85mph rockets off both wings for 3 hours straight like Stan in 2015.

There are no serve and volley players in the top 20, the game has moved on. The reason why there are none is because the elite players are so good at returning. Players are afraid to come to the net because Djokovic and Nadal hit quality passing shots.

Sampras vs Djokovic, Djokovic wins in 3 sets everywhere except on grass. On grass he wins in 5. That’s how good Djokovic is. Nadal and Federer are not far behind.

 

[street cricketer]

I'm not a tennis expert but wasn't Sampras (and generally players of the past) more of a serve and volley player than baseline sluggers like Nadal and Djokovic..

But then again, both Nadal and Djokovic have very quick feet and equally good at the net. And they play incredible passing shots. I think it's simply nostalgia to think the best tennis players of the 80s and 90s would have beaten the likes of Nadal and Djokovic. In most sports, athletes have become fitter and leaner with modern sport science and it is natural to expect the current day athletes to outlast the yesteryear ones. Of course everything has a saturation point and we can't expect humans to keep becoming better versions of their previous generation, but I do think modern sports science and nutrition has made much stronger and fitter athletes now than in the past.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I'm not a tennis expert but wasn't Sampras (and generally players of the past) more of a serve and volley player than baseline sluggers like Nadal and Djokovic..

But then again, both Nadal and Djokovic have very quick feet and equally good at the net. And they play incredible passing shots. I think it's simply nostalgia to think the best tennis players of the 80s and 90s would have beaten the likes of Nadal and Djokovic. In most sports, athletes have become fitter and leaner with modern sport science and it is natural to expect the current day athletes to outlast the yesteryear ones. Of course everything has a saturation point and we can't expect humans to keep becoming better versions of their previous generation, but I do think modern sports science and nutrition has made much stronger and fitter athletes now than in the past.

I am not really a fan of using flat measurements like [MENTION=135003]bones[/MENTION] is doing to make his case just because of this. Yes sports science and nutrition has made athletes much stronger and fitter, but does that mean Muhammad Ali or Rocky Marciano can no longer be considered the greatest of all time?

To give a fair assessment we should assume that Pete Sampras would also have improved fitness and nutrition to give him that edge if he was playing today. Then you could argue whether his game was suited to combating the game of Djoko or Nadal, and that becomes a lot more subjective. We can all have our opinion, but at the end of the day it's just an opinion no matter if you want to measure forehands by kph or headband compatibility, which in my opinion is at least as valid an argument.

 

[Vegitto1]

Djokovic may go on to win more grand slams than anyone in the history of tennis, Nadal for sure is the undisputed king of clay and they may both be ranked ahead of Federer.

But the way Federer plays tennis, and how effortless he makes it look, I mean we can compare it to art in motion. For me he will always be the best tennis player ever. An absolute joy to watch.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Djokovic may go on to win more grand slams than anyone in the history of tennis, Nadal for sure is the undisputed king of clay and they may both be ranked ahead of Federer.

But the way Federer plays tennis, and how effortless he makes it look, I mean we can compare it to art in motion. For me he will always be the best tennis player ever. An absolute joy to watch.

Aesthetically Federer is the most perfect player of all time. I am not even particularly a fan of Federer, usually I will back Nadal or someone like Stan Wawrinka when they go head to head with him, but as a pure amalgamation of skill, elegance and timing, Federer is the best I've ever seen. Makes Djokovic look like well programmed juiced up bot.

 

[bones]

Aesthetically Federer is the most perfect player of all time. I am not even particularly a fan of Federer, usually I will back Nadal or someone like Stan Wawrinka when they go head to head with him, but as a pure amalgamation of skill, elegance and timing, Federer is the best I've ever seen. Makes Djokovic look like well programmed juiced up bot.

If only sport was about elegant a player looks right? What about mental strength? What about endurance? What about an all-round complete game?

5 years ago when Federer was way out in front in the slam race everyone was calling him the GOAT because of that stat and his number of weeks at 1. But now that one of those records is shattered and the other one is on the verge of going as well. All of his fans will use terms like "elegance", "talent" and "charisma" to justify calling him the GOAT.

All of those terms are subjective, facts and achievements are not subjective.

Nadal and Djokovic both have a positive H2H on Federer and the age excuse doesn't cut it. Yes he is older than them now, but wasn't he older than them when they were starting out on tour? If age is an excuse for Federer now then equally it was an excuse for the other 2 when they were starting out.

Djokovic has shown time and time again that mentally he is a giant compared to Federer. The number of times he's had to overcome partisan crowds, pretty much his entire career, the number of times he's pulled matches out of the bag when MP down. The number of times he's physically outlasted opponents in pressure matches pushes him well above Federer in the GOAT debate.

Fed fans and casual observers: He is the GOAT because he's a complete player, elegant and makes it look easy, stats are not that important.

The truth: He's a great player who is not as mentally tough or physically strong as his main rivals. So how is he a complete player if he has these two very obvious holes in his game?

Djokovic fans and tennis enthusiasts: He is now the best of the open era because even though he is 1 slam behind all his other achievements are worth much more than that 1 slam. Djokovic has won all the slams twice. He's wo all the masters twice too! Federer and Nadal haven't even won them all once! Djokovic has a positive H2H against both and has beaten them at their favourite slam more than once.

At RG2021 - Djokovic changed the narrative. For true tennis fans he did something that elevated him to a new level and as much as all the haters, Fed ******* and casual tennis followers may want to ignore the facts - there's hardly any dispute now. He is the best in the open era, the best since Laver.

 

[bones]

Djokovic may go on to win more grand slams than anyone in the history of tennis, Nadal for sure is the undisputed king of clay and they may both be ranked ahead of Federer.

But the way Federer plays tennis, and how effortless he makes it look, I mean we can compare it to art in motion. For me he will always be the best tennis player ever. An absolute joy to watch.

Do you see the contradiction in your post? Djokovic and Nadal may be ranked ahead of Federer but in your opinion Federer will still be the best? How can you be the best if your main rivals beat you down more often than vice versa? How can you be the best when your main rivals are mentally stronger than and more physically stronger.

Isn't playing your best when the pressure is the highest a skill? If so isn't Djokovic better?

Between Federer's "elegance" and Djokovic's "mental fortitude", what do you think most athletes would prefer?

 

[mastimasti]

There is certainly an argument for Novak, and in the modern era where stats are king he is up there if not the very best. However one must also observe the players, their style, grace, skill set, ability, endurance, what their contemporaries were like etc....even with that Novak is upper echelon.

For me it goes:

Federer
Novak
Nadal
Sampras
Borg

 

[OMB]

Djokovic may go on to win more grand slams than anyone in the history of tennis, Nadal for sure is the undisputed king of clay and they may both be ranked ahead of Federer.

But the way Federer plays tennis, and how effortless he makes it look, I mean we can compare it to art in motion. For me he will always be the best tennis player ever. An absolute joy to watch.

I agree with you about the Federer appearing so effortless in his tennis because he of his facial set wihc appears to be smiling and also because he grunt or scream so much. btw, Maria Sharapova will also appear effortless if you put the TV on mute lol.

For the joy to watch scenario, this is different strokes for different people. Lots of people find Djoker way more entertaining than Federer, crowds love him for his on-court antics.

Every player has a unique ability at which they were best.
Boris Becker certainly was more joy to watch on the grass courts than Federer as he would throw all in the game.
Agassi could create amazingly long rallies from the baseline and was probably the only one who could return every serve of Sampras.
Michael Chang was the quickest chaser on the court and could chase any ball thrown at him.
Pete Sampras was the ace serve and volley player.
Goran Ivanisevic had a booming serve.

Djokovic is that multiple choice answer which says all of the above.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If only sport was about elegant a player looks right? What about mental strength? What about endurance? What about an all-round complete game?

You do know how many grand slams Federer has won over 15 years of an incredible career right? I'll say it again, I'm not even particularly a fan of Federer, but I can appreciate his sheer style and effortless power.

Have you ever played tennis? Sometimes with your relentless pursuit of stats and forehand speeds in kph, it seems like your experience may be more virtua tennis on the PS4.

 

[dildilpak]

You do know how many grand slams Federer has won over 15 years of an incredible career right? I'll say it again, I'm not even particularly a fan of Federer, but I can appreciate his sheer style and effortless power.

Have you ever played tennis? Sometimes with your relentless pursuit of stats and forehand speeds in kph, it seems like your experience may be more virtua tennis on the PS4.

And as i said before, Federer has won most of his grand slams before in an era where there werent the best of opponents around. Since 2010 (& he was 28 back then), he has won 5 grand slams- mostly when Nadal or Djokovic were injured. Since they turned 30 - Fed has won 4 slams, Nadal has won 6, Djokovic has won 7, which also dispels the myth of his incredibly long career. He may be elegant & easy on eye & darling of the media, but not particularly effective- Stats dont lie!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

And as i said before, Federer has won most of his grand slams before in an era where there werent the best of opponents around. Since 2010 (& he was 28 back then), he has won 5 grand slams- mostly when Nadal or Djokovic were injured. Since they turned 30 - Fed has won 4 slams, Nadal has won 6, Djokovic has won 7, which also dispels the myth of his incredibly long career. He may be elegant & easy on eye & darling of the media, but not particularly effective- Stats dont lie!

15 years at the top is an incredibly long career, not sure how you are calling this a myth. By at the top, I mean competing for the big prizes and winning them along with DJokervic and Nadal. Just because there were two other exceptional players at the top doesn't make him any less so. Look at his record. Do you know how many players go a whole career without winning a grand slam?

 

[dildilpak]

15 years at the top is an incredibly long career, not sure how you are calling this a myth. By at the top, I mean competing for the big prizes and winning them along with DJokervic and Nadal. Just because there were two other exceptional players at the top doesn't make him any less so. Look at his record. Do you know how many players go a whole career without winning a grand slam?

I dont dispute that competing for 15 years is a big deal, but that doesnt make Fed the best of his generation (which is what the thread is all about). Just like SRT playing for 24 years doesnt make him necessarily better than Bradman or Richards - stats matter too. I dont know how one can disregard Djokovich having better H2H against much tougher opponents or having won each grand slam twice or even more slams after age 30, in favor of something subjective like ‘pleasing on the eye’, ‘fluid movements’ or even something as ridiculous as ‘more fan base’.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Personal dislike aside his records stand alone. Double masters sweep, double Slam (though Federer, perhaps preparing for the inevitability, has mentioned clay now isn't the clay of Kuerten and Moya), multiple ATP finals, year end No1, possible Grand Slam, two calendar slams, think he needs Olympics (irrelevant) and by the end of Aus Open will conceivably have outright lead in slam count.

He's crept up and quietly (not all that quietly though much less than Rafa) dominated since 2011

 

[OMB]

Novak Djokovic gifts his racquet to a young fan after Wimbledon final.
A sweet gesture by Novak Djokovic for a young fan has now won people’s hearts.

 

[OMB]

====

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">My team, my family, thank you for everything <a href="https://t.co/p97F6WpzPV">pic.twitter.com/p97F6WpzPV</a></p>— Novak Djokovic (@DjokerNole) <a href="https://twitter.com/DjokerNole/status/1414292563612286978?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 11, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[The_KING]

I dont dispute that competing for 15 years is a big deal, but that doesnt make Fed the best of his generation (which is what the thread is all about). Just like SRT playing for 24 years doesnt make him necessarily better than Bradman or Richards - stats matter too. I dont know how one can disregard Djokovich having better H2H against much tougher opponents or having won each grand slam twice or even more slams after age 30, in favor of something subjective like ‘pleasing on the eye’, ‘fluid movements’ or even something as ridiculous as ‘more fan base’.

Federer is 6 years older than Djokovic and 5 years older than Nadal. He isn't even from the same generation as those two. Federer is from the 1980-1984 generation. Nadal & Djokovic are from the 1985-89 generation. Of course, Federer is the best of his generation, just like Djokovic is the best of his generation. Just because Federer had great longevity, it doesn't mean that he is from the same generation as Djokovic.

 

[The_KING]

And as i said before, Federer has won most of his grand slams before in an era where there werent the best of opponents around. Since 2010 (& he was 28 back then), he has won 5 grand slams- mostly when Nadal or Djokovic were injured. Since they turned 30 - Fed has won 4 slams, Nadal has won 6, Djokovic has won 7, which also dispels the myth of his incredibly long career. He may be elegant & easy on eye & darling of the media, but not particularly effective- Stats dont lie!

Another hater discrediting Federer's achievements. You aren't supposed to win slams in your 30s. Federer winning 4 slams after 30 is great. Imagine saying that a guy with 20 slams and 103 titles isn't effective. Get out of here with your hate.

 

[dildilpak]

Another hater discrediting Federer's achievements. You aren't supposed to win slams in your 30s. Federer winning 4 slams after 30 is great. Imagine saying that a guy with 20 slams and 103 titles isn't effective. Get out of here with your hate.

Who the hell are you? I am entitled to my views just like you are - Federer is not the only one who is winning in his 30s - infact Djokovich has just won his 8th slam in his 30s, plus might end up with 5 more. Also throughout his career Djokovic defeated Nadal & Federer (so higher quality opponents). If you want to put Federer on a pedestal just because he chose to drag his career till his 40s thats your call, but i will go by hard stats. And stats now say that Djokovic is the GOAT, deal with it!

 

[The_KING]

Who the hell are you? I am entitled to my views just like you are - Federer is not the only one who is winning in his 30s - infact Djokovich has just won his 8th slam in his 30s, plus might end up with 5 more. Also throughout his career Djokovic defeated Nadal & Federer (so higher quality opponents). If you want to put Federer on a pedestal just because he chose to drag his career till his 40s thats your call, but i will go by hard stats. And stats now say that Djokovic is the GOAT, deal with it!

I already said in another thread that Djokovic is the GOAT. It's you taking shots at Federer by saying that he only won 4 slams in his 30s. Like it's so easy to win slams in their 30s. Go throughout tennis history, before Federer, Nadal & Djokovic, hardly any of the greats of the past ever won slams in their 30s. But you won't know that, because like most Djokovic fans, you probably only started to watch tennis in the last 10 years.

And hard stats show that Federer has had an incredible career. Imagine thinking that because Djokovic has surpassed Federer, that somehow diminishes Federer's achievements. Get the hell out of here.

 

[dildilpak]

I already said in another thread that Djokovic is the GOAT. It's you taking shots at Federer by saying that he only won 4 slams in his 30s. Like it's so easy to win slams in their 30s. Go throughout tennis history, before Federer, Nadal & Djokovic, hardly any of the greats of the past ever won slams in their 30s. But you won't know that, because like most Djokovic fans, you probably only started to watch tennis in the last 10 years.

And hard stats show that Federer has had an incredible career. Imagine thinking that because Djokovic has surpassed Federer, that somehow diminishes Federer's achievements. Get the hell out of here.

Watching & playing competitive Tennis since a kid. I have never said that Federer is not a great player, but this discussion is about Djokovich & like a typical Federer fan boy you are trying to diminish his achievements by bringing in Federer’s ‘longevity’ or ‘graceful’ play like the spectators who cannot see their hero being bested & boo at Djokovich every match. If tomorrow somebody better’s Djokovich’s record i will be the first to appreciate that, but for now you deal with Djokovich being GOAT.

 

[The_KING]

Watching & playing competitive Tennis since a kid. I have never said that Federer is not a great player, but this discussion is about Djokovich & like a typical Federer fan boy you are trying to diminish his achievements by bringing in Federer’s ‘longevity’ or ‘graceful’ play like the spectators who cannot see their hero being bested & boo at Djokovich every match. If tomorrow somebody better’s Djokovich’s record i will be the first to appreciate that, but for now you deal with Djokovich being GOAT.

It's Djokovic not Djokoivch. You can't even spell his name and you are his fan.

You are the one who tried to diminish Federer's achievements, which is why I responded to you. You are making it seem like Federer's achievements are meaningless because Djokovic has surpassed him. Djokovic can win 30 slams, but Federer's achievements will still remain. No one can take away from what he has achieved.

 

[bones]

The thread is - is he the GOAT? I don't think there is a GOAT because you simply cannot compare with the Laver era when it was so different and less physical.

But Djokovic is right now the undisputed greatest in the open era. He is more complete than both Nadal and Federer physically and mentally. The most telling stat about Djokovic is that he's won the career slam twice and beaten both of them on their favourite court.

Djokovic is the greatest of the open era, before Wimbledon it was clear but after Wimbledon it's further cemented the case.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

You cant compare players of different eras, however i think Djokovic has surpassed Nadal and Federer as the greatest Tennis player of his era. If Federer and Djokovic were the same age in their prime, I would take Federer on grass and hard courts. Same way, if Nadal and Djokovic were the same age in their prime, then i would choose Nadal on Clay. However overall Djokovic has had a slightly better career than Federer and Nadal.

As much as I hate the fact that Djokovic will pass Federer mark of grand slam finals, Djokovic is a really good tennis player, and he deserves it.

 

[Giannis]

Watching & playing competitive Tennis since a kid. I have never said that Federer is not a great player, but this discussion is about Djokovich & like a typical Federer fan boy you are trying to diminish his achievements by bringing in Federer’s ‘longevity’ or ‘graceful’ play like the spectators who cannot see their hero being bested & boo at Djokovich every match. If tomorrow somebody better’s Djokovich’s record i will be the first to appreciate that, but for now you deal with Djokovich being GOAT.

Djokovic's competition isn't the same; Federer in his 30s had to face prime Nadal, prime Djokovic, prime Murray among many other great players.

 

[dildilpak]

Djokovic's competition isn't the same; Federer in his 30s had to face prime Nadal, prime Djokovic, prime Murray among many other great players.

And i can turn your point around to say Federer in his 20s (when he earned his maximum slams) didnt face players of the calibre of Nadal & Djokovich either, and even then he couldnt win on clay. For the earliest part of his career he was winning slams against Andy Roddick or Hewitt who were no mug by all means but werent exactly all time great materials either. He was really challenged only when Rafa came into the picture.

Djokovic on the other hand has faced & defeated both Fed & Rafa on their preferred courts, while they havent even come close on his turf (hard court). Even his worst detractors will admit that Djokovic has the most all-round game of the three - he can slug it out with Rafa on clay & match the biggest servers on grass (like the way he did the other day with Berrettini). And that is what sets him apart from the other two.

Anyway the stats will not lie - right now they all are on 20 slams, but if Djokovic ends his career with 25 or 26 there will be no doubts whatsoever about his GOAT status.

 

[Giannis]

And i can turn your point around to say Federer in his 20s (when he earned his maximum slams) didnt face players of the calibre of Nadal & Djokovich either, and even then he couldnt win on clay. For the earliest part of his career he was winning slams against Andy Roddick or Hewitt who were no mug by all means but werent exactly all time great materials either. He was really challenged only when Rafa came into the picture.

Djokovic on the other hand has faced & defeated both Fed & Rafa on their preferred courts, while they havent even come close on his turf (hard court). Even his worst detractors will admit that Djokovic has the most all-round game of the three - he can slug it out with Rafa on clay & match the biggest servers on grass (like the way he did the other day with Berrettini). And that is what sets him apart from the other two.

Anyway the stats will not lie - right now they all are on 20 slams, but if Djokovic ends his career with 25 or 26 there will be no doubts whatsoever about his GOAT status.

Federer in his 20s did face prime Nadal (2005-2011) among plenty of other class players like Safin, Davydenko, Nalbandian, del Potro, Roddick, Wawrinka, Agassi, Tsonga, Moya and he also faced a young Djokivic (2007-2011) who was still very potent early in his career

 

[street cricketer]

Djokovic on the other hand has faced & defeated both Fed & Rafa on their preferred courts, while they havent even come close on his turf (hard court). Even his worst detractors will admit that Djokovic has the most all-round game of the three - he can slug it out with Rafa on clay & match the biggest servers on grass (like the way he did the other day with Berrettini). And that is what sets him apart from the other two.

Nadal and Federer literally have more US open titles than Djokovic and Nadal has a winning record vs Novak in the US open.

The meetings between Novak and Federer currently stand at 20-18 on hard courts. Djokovic is the youngest player out of the three, and also the fittest especially after he sorted his gluten intolerance. Novak will very likely end with the highest grandslam titles and I don't think Federer and Nadal can challenge him anymore at this stage in their careers. Federer certainly is finished and while Nadal probably still has some gas left, I don't think he has enough to challenge Djokovic who seems to be at his peak. I certainly don't think Nadal can perform even close to what Federer does at Federer's age. Novak is also the most versatile of the three but I don't get why Djokovic fans tell obvious lies like Federer and Rafa haven't even come close to Djokovic on hard courts when it's obviously not true.

 

[bones]

They haven't come close to beating him at AO. Perhaps Djokovic has under-achieved at the USO. The AO2012 final was close, Nadal a few points from victory, but I think the long SF Djokovic has was the reason it dragged.

Overall there's no question now that Djokovic has the better resume.

 

[Mamoon]

And i can turn your point around to say Federer in his 20s (when he earned his maximum slams) didnt face players of the calibre of Nadal & Djokovich either, and even then he couldnt win on clay. For the earliest part of his career he was winning slams against Andy Roddick or Hewitt who were no mug by all means but werent exactly all time great materials either. He was really challenged only when Rafa came into the picture.

Djokovic on the other hand has faced & defeated both Fed & Rafa on their preferred courts, while they havent even come close on his turf (hard court). Even his worst detractors will admit that Djokovic has the most all-round game of the three - he can slug it out with Rafa on clay & match the biggest servers on grass (like the way he did the other day with Berrettini). And that is what sets him apart from the other two.

Anyway the stats will not lie - right now they all are on 20 slams, but if Djokovic ends his career with 25 or 26 there will be no doubts whatsoever about his GOAT status.

The Federer era started in 2003 when he won his first Wimbledon. Meanwhile, Nadal burst onto the scene as a champion player when he won the RG 2005.

You are making it sound as if Federer had multiple years at the top without Nadal. They are literally from the same era with Djokovic emerging as a world class player a few years later (2008-2009).

Djokovic will end up with 25-26 grand slams and it would be hard to argue against his GOAT status, considering the fact that Federer is unlikely to win another one and Nadal might have a couple of RGs left in the tank, but personally speaking, Federer from 2004 to 2007 is the best tennis player I’ve seen.

He was so ruthless and elegant to watch. In addition to being a winning machine, the one-handed backhand, not a single grunt, the bandana, his serve style. It was the purest and most perfect form of tennis you can have the privilege to watch.

Djokovic has some of the best characteristics of Federer and Nadal in his own play. He can reproduce Federer’s magic but has the heart and resilience of Nadal, but I personally don’t find that particularly attractive to watch.

I would still pick prime Federer as the best tennis player I’ve seen, but there is no doubt in my mind that Djokovic is superior to Nadal, who is better than Federer and Djokovic only on clay.

 

[The_KING]

Nadal and Federer literally have more US open titles than Djokovic and Nadal has a winning record vs Novak in the US open.

The meetings between Novak and Federer currently stand at 20-18 on hard courts. Djokovic is the youngest player out of the three, and also the fittest especially after he sorted his gluten intolerance. Novak will very likely end with the highest grandslam titles and I don't think Federer and Nadal can challenge him anymore at this stage in their careers. Federer certainly is finished and while Nadal probably still has some gas left, I don't think he has enough to challenge Djokovic who seems to be at his peak. I certainly don't think Nadal can perform even close to what Federer does at Federer's age. Novak is also the most versatile of the three but I don't get why Djokovic fans tell obvious lies like Federer and Rafa haven't even come close to Djokovic on hard courts when it's obviously not true.

Preach bro. These Djokovic fans act like Djokovic has dominated both Federer and Nadal at their best. Federer was at his prime from 2003-2012. Nadal was in his prime from 2005-2014. Djokovic had a losing head to head against both Nadal and Federer, when they were in their respective primes.

There is no doubt that Djokovic is the GOAT, but let not make it out like he was beating the absolute best version of Federer and Nadal in the last few years.

Throughout tennis history, players dominate in their early and mid 20s They then start to decline in their late 20s and early 30s, and are replaced at the top by a young top player in his early 20s. Old Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall had young Connors and Borg to deal with. Old Connors and McEnroe had to deal with young Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander and they had to deal with young Sampras and Agassi when they were in their late 20s and early 30s. Old Sampras and Agassi had to deal with young Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Ferraro and Federer. Old Federer had to deal with younger Nadal and Djokovic. Who is old Djokovic dealing with? Which top young player has Djokovic got to contend with? Nishikori? Raonic? Dimitrov? Tsitsipas? Zverev? Thiem?

Like I said, Djokovic will go down as the goat, but things needs to be put into perspective. If any one of Nishikori, Raonic or Dimitrov lived up to the hype, Djokovic wouldn’t have reached 20 slams, and to be fair, neither would have Federer and Nadal.