LiveFromLondon
Superstar
Okay now name the players he beat in that time span
The Official Tennis Thread
- Thread starter mr x
- Start date
Like Tsitsipas and Kyrgios have ever won anything. Novak stans love to talk about how the 2000s was a weak era, but how strong can Novak's reign be when only one player born after 1987 (Alcaraz, who he's never played at a GS) has won a Slam. At least Safin and Hewitt won a couple Slams.
Dude, we're not gonna agree and just leave at that. I just don't think Novak is the GOAT.
Novak is the most well rounded and will be the most accomplished singles player
Whether you like his style or think he at his very best is better than someone at their very best is another topic
Whether you like his style or think he at his very best is better than someone at their very best is another topic
It was majors and weeks at 1 for years as the metrics now that fed don’t have a case we talking about eye test
Fed is third now what are you talking about
How are you the GOAT when your 2 rivals owned you head to head and have more majors
All things being equal having the most ascetically pleasing game may be able to shade it but that's the thing they aren't equal.
Federer's first 5 slams were won against players outside the big 4 and when we're talking about sporting achievement in an individual sport both the achievements of Nadal and Djokovic are greater than his now not to talk about when they actually hang up their rackets.
Thing with Fed fans is when it looked like he'd win the most slams that was being used as the measure of his greatness over everyone else but when that came under threat by Djokovic and Nadal the conversation changed to what his game looks like, how gracious he is or whatever lame metric to judge an individual sport.
Federer is a great champion but he is not the greatest tennis player, that argument has been put to bed quite a while ago.
Look at how many times Djokoovic and Nadal have had to beat others in the big 4 in comparison to Federer, or look at the number of big titles he has compared to them. Honestly it's a terrible argument to call him the greatest point blank.
Formerly known as...
Collector
I mean Fed, Novak and Nadal are the GOATS and arguments can be made for all. Novak did go on an insane run and catch up to Fed when it didnt look possibly and Fed wasn't slowing down against others, Novak and Nadal neutralised his game at a point and he had no answers for them. Head to Head in key moments they had his number, Novak really had him. But like I said I can't hate on anyone picking any 1 of the 3 really.
It was majors and weeks at 1 for years as the metrics now that fed don’t have a case we talking about eye test
Wrong the likes of Borg have way less slams and we’re always compared to Fed as equals.
Nadal and Djokovic only have two slams over Fed, brehs acting like it’s a huge number, and Djokovic has been the benefit of a weak era these last 5 years too, a waning Fed and Nadal is his only competition which is why he’s pulled ahead.
Djokovic dominated the strongest era lol "weak era" when Federer won his first 5 slams against players outside the big 4, Federer dominated in the weak era breh
Also come back at me with the big title numbers and other accolades that Djokovic and Nadal have over him too
This has been a weak era for tennis for the last 5+ years.
Federer had literally two years of dominating before young Nadal came in the scene.
But when fed “only” had 2 over those guys it was considered a big deal. It’s over bro just accept it
Fed and Borg haven’t been compared since like 2007
Murray is better than everyone fed beat in major finals from 05-07 aside from nadal
Del Potro was a better player than Murray
And that aside Murray is clearly a tier below. He may be the best of the rest at most