ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => Sport => General Discussion Boards => Tennis => Topic started by: Joseph41 on January 27, 2019, 08:37:55 pm
-
Bit of discussion - Djokovic v. Nadal at present in the AO Final.
I'd go:
Career:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
Favourites:
1. Federer
2. Murray
3. Nadal
4. Djokovic
-
Bit of discussion - Djokovic v. Nadal at present in the AO Final.
I'd go:
Career:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
Favourites:
1. Federer
2. Murray
3. Nadal
4. Djokovic
I agree with the above, but think that Djokovic will probably end up higher than Nadal.
-
The Roger love on here is even worse than everywhere else :'(
https://au.sports.yahoo.com/rod-lavers-bombshell-prediction-federer-djokovic-030726728.html
I think tonight plays a big role. If Rafa can come back and wins, he should also come pretty close to the French and that would only put him a Slam behind Roger + his superior H2H. If Novak wins, he has a seriously good shot at RG and if he gets the first two Slams, The Grand Slam is a serious possibility, which would clearly make him the Greatest of All Time IMO.
Fed just hasn't done well enough for a consistent period against his two greatest rivals to be ranked higher on the list.
-
The Roger love on here is even worse than everywhere else :'(
https://au.sports.yahoo.com/rod-lavers-bombshell-prediction-federer-djokovic-030726728.html
I think tonight plays a big role. If Rafa can come back and wins, he should also come pretty close to the French and that would only put him a Slam behind Roger + his superior H2H. If Novak wins, he has a seriously good shot at RG and if he gets the first two Slams, The Grand Slam is a serious possibility, which would clearly make him the Greatest of All Time IMO.
Fed just hasn't done well enough for a consistent period against his two greatest rivals to be ranked higher on the list.
You don't think Federer has had the best career so far?
-
Career:
1) Djokovic
2) Federer
3) Nadal
4) Murray
Personal preference:
1) Murray
2) Federer
3) Nadal
4) Djokovic
Federer vs. Djoko is controversial, but Djokovic won pretty much all his GS while the big 4 were dominant (apart from periods where Nadal was injured). While a half of Fed's GS from early in his career came when there were weren't very strong players around for the most part (although he did well to beat Sampras at Wimbledon when he was strong at the start of his career as well as Agassi in his final major final). Nadal is behind them because all apart from six of his GS are French Opens. Even the specialist clay-court players are far behind him so he hasn't faced much competition on the clay courts. Federer's influence on the sport is unmatched though.
EDIT:Regarding Fed vs. Nadal, in matches against Djoko, Fed has challenged him far more than Nadal has. Also the AO final 2 years ago which Fed won against Nadal was one of my favourites so.... (although the Wimbledon finals between the 2 many years ago were epics as well).
-
You don't think Federer has had the best career so far?
I think it depends how you define 'best career'. Like apple said, nine of Roger's Slams were pre-2007, and he has a negative record against both his rivals. You can't be the greatest after that.
I hate the whole 'Rafa's Slams all came on Clay' argument' trying to reduce his viability as GOAT, when the same could be said for Roger at Wimbledon when there was virtually no decent grasscourters to challenge him after Sampras retired. Rafa has a much better record at Wimby than Roger at RG. If anything, it escalates Novak to GOAT above them both.
-
Career.
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
Murray being a long way behind and Nadal/Djokovic very very close.
Personal.
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Murray
-
and he has a negative record against both his rivals. You can't be the greatest after that.
I think the Federer vs. Nadal H2H will leave an eternal stain on Roger's career. However, Nadal and Federer's H2Hs against Novak is almost identical, and they are pretty damn close. Very interested to see how each of the H2Hs will change in these next couple of years, but I'm not sure such certainty can possible come from H2H numbers, at least where they stand currently. The non-transitive nature of H2H is very frustrating when arguing about whether A is better than B, and add on top of that, the fact that they are very much swayed by where and when players meet. For example, Dustin Brown has a 2-0 H2H against Rafa, beating him very convincingly in Halle and Wimbledon. So is Brown the real GOAT? ;D
-
I think the Federer vs. Nadal H2H will leave an eternal stain on Roger's career. However, Nadal and Federer's H2Hs against Novak is almost identical, and they are pretty damn close. Very interested to see how each of the H2Hs will change in these next couple of years, but I'm not sure such certainty can possible come from H2H numbers, at least where they stand currently. The non-transitive nature of H2H is very frustrating when arguing about whether A is better than B, and add on top of that, the fact that they are very much swayed by where and when players meet. For example, Dustin Brown has a 2-0 H2H against Rafa, beating him very convincingly in Halle and Wimbledon. So is Brown the real GOAT? ;D
I see what you've done there, but are two matches really a sufficient sample size? ;)
Novak sits on 15 Slams now, Nadal 17. I see Rafa winning at least another two RG in the next three/four years, even if he's basically crippled by injuries he will maximize his Claycourt career as Roger has his Wimbledon chances. Novak is the wildcard though, with a superior H2H, however minor, if he can get to 20 he immediately becomes the best of the 3 IMO. When you take into account his age, he could conceivably play another 4-5 years and alongside his Hardcourt success, could even steal another French.
I'd say they're virtually neck and neck right now, respective of each of their pros and cons over each other, I couldn't choose the best of them right now. I love Andy, but there was never a big four in my eyes. Andy & Wawrinka are close as it is, I'd probably prefer Stan's three slams with one of each than Andy's split.
-
To be honest I'd have to agree with several others that Murray really doesn't fit. He has been a great player, but I don't think he was up to the level of the other three. Personally I'd put it in the following order:
1. Fed
2. Novak
3. Rafa
They are all exceptional players, and each, without the other 2, could have achieved at least 15 more slams. However, Federer's attitude has always impressed me more than the others, so on a personal level I would put him at the top, as well as in terms of skill. I know that there are weaknesses in his record, but still you can't forget that he has got 20 GS. Rafa is an awesome player, but his record is inflated by 11 RG, with his next highest slam being the US Open, with only 3. Federer, on the other hand has only one RG, but the next fewest is five US Opens, so you can't say is dominance is Wimbledon only. Djokovic is also an amazing player, and has a great record, but though I would put him above Rafa, I don't think he's quite achieved Fed level yet. Maybe later, but not yet.
-
To be honest I'd have to agree with several others that Murray really doesn't fit. He has been a great player, but I don't think he was up to the level of the other three. Personally I'd put it in the following order:
1. Fed
2. Novak
3. Rafa
They are all exceptional players, and each, without the other 2, could have achieved at least 15 more slams. However, Federer's attitude has always impressed me more than the others, so on a personal level I would put him at the top, as well as in terms of skill. I know that there are weaknesses in his record, but still you can't forget that he has got 20 GS. Rafa is an awesome player, but his record is inflated by 11 RG, with his next highest slam being the US Open, with only 3. Federer, on the other hand has only one RG, but the next fewest is five US Opens, so you can't say is dominance is Wimbledon only. Djokovic is also an amazing player, and has a great record, but though I would put him above Rafa, I don't think he's quite achieved Fed level yet. Maybe later, but not yet.
Mind if I ask what about Fed's attitude impresses you?
The thing that stands out to me, that is different to the other two, is his habit of crying after losing tournaments (aka AO 09') :-X
-
I love Andy, but there was never a big four in my eyes. Andy & Wawrinka are close as it is, I'd probably prefer Stan's three slams with one of each than Andy's split.
To be honest I'd have to agree with several others that Murray really doesn't fit.
I always viewed it as a Big Four, where Andy and Stan both made up 0.5 lol.
I see what you've done there, but are two matches really a sufficient sample size? ;)
Novak sits on 15 Slams now, Nadal 17. I see Rafa winning at least another two RG in the next three/four years, even if he's basically crippled by injuries he will maximize his Claycourt career as Roger has his Wimbledon chances. Novak is the wildcard though, with a superior H2H, however minor, if he can get to 20 he immediately becomes the best of the 3 IMO. When you take into account his age, he could conceivably play another 4-5 years and alongside his Hardcourt success, could even steal another French.
Indeed, 20 is, amazingly enough, an achievable feat for both Rafa and Nole. I think whoever retires with the most GS titles will dominate the GOAT discussion for many many years, regardless of other achievements (and arguments of whether someone prospered in a weak era). It is unfortunate that so much emphasis is placed on this one single, kinda-arbitrary metric. But I guess it's also arbitrary that we're comparing how good people are at hitting a ball over a net with a stick...
-
Murray is considered as part of the big 4 even if he has only won 3 GS, as for the majority of the majority of his career, he has lost to the other 3 players at semi/final level for the most part. He was up there competing with them, he was still a lot more consistent and a level above the other top 10 players. In any other era, he would have won more than double the number of GS he currently has.
-
Mind if I ask what about Fed's attitude impresses you?
The thing that stands out to me, that is different to the other two, is his habit of crying after losing tournaments (aka AO 09') :-X
Can't deny that I would cry after losing a slam... I think most people would be pretty upset in that kind of a position. In interviews, in games (I'm not including the rage issues from back at the start of his career, that's pretty much, if not completely, worn off) he always seems a very nice man, and I have a lot of respect for him as a fair and gentle person.
Murray is considered as part of the big 4 even if he has only won 3 GS, as for the majority of the majority of his career, he has lost to the other 3 players at semi/final level for the most part. He was up there competing with them, he was still a lot more consistent and a level above the other top 10 players. In any other era, he would have won more than double the number of GS he currently has.
Certainly agree with the part in bold. I think that there are quite a few players out there who could have won a lot of Slams without the other 3.
-
Personally, I don't see Murray at the same level as the other 3. Still an incredible player of course, but I don't quite place him in the realm of present day GOAT-potential-worthiness like Fed.
I think I'd have to go with, career wise,
Fed
Djokovic
Nadal (..just.. and this is somewhat because I think Djokovic has more future potential)
Murray
As for personal preference of the players, I'm going to be a bit of an outlier;
Djokovic
Fed and Nadal.. I don't think I can pick :P
Murray (Still a champ)
Djokovic doesn't seem to get the same fan love as Fed and Nadal (I'd like to know why) but I absolutely love him. All of them seem extremely likeable to me though, especially as they've all matured a lot.
Another question for anyone who wants to lend their thoughts; at the top of their games, which player is the best? Djokovic's effortlessness tonight makes me want to put his name forward but I'd have to refresh my memory of peak Federer and Nadal because they're all that good. So hard to come to any consensus!
-
Can't deny that I would cry after losing a slam... I think most people would be pretty upset in that kind of a position. In interviews, in games (I'm not including the rage issues from back at the start of his career, that's pretty much, if not completely, worn off) he always seems a very nice man, and I have a lot of respect for him as a fair and gentle person.
Certainly agree with the part in bold. I think that there are quite a few players out there who could have won a lot of Slams without the other 3.
I might cry if I lost my first Slam, but there's no way I'd be crying if I had 12 already :P I love Fed, but he's always seemed entitled to me as opposed to Novak & Nadal.
-
I don't think anyone is actually putting Murray in and amongst Fed, Nadal, Djoker - and they shouldn't. The only reason it is called the big 4 is because the all consistently made it to the semis in major tournaments with Murray also consistently losing.
Another question for anyone who wants to lend their thoughts; at the top of their games, which player is the best? Djokovic's effortlessness tonight makes me want to put his name forward but I'd have to refresh my memory of peak Federer and Nadal because they're all that good. So hard to come to any consensus!
Overall Federer but depending on the court obviously it would be
Grass - Federer
Clay - Nadal
Hard court - Djokovic/Federer
-
Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are all amazing players who are doing things that, judging by the historical record, they really had no right to do. As already discussed in this thread, Murray not quite so much, but I was really glad when he got his first slam, when he became a multiple slam winner, and when he finally reached No 1. All incredibly hard-fought achievements. And for a brief time Wawrinka turned the talk to a Big Five with three slams in three years.
Anyway, my career ranking would be:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Murray
5. Wawrinka
My personal ranking would be much the same. The ones I particularly like to watch are Federer and Djokovic, but also Wawrinka when his backhand is going well. Federer's the only one I've seen play live, though honestly you can see a lot better on TV than from one of the back rows in Rod Laver...
To me, one of the amazing things is the longevity. I remember when Federer's 2012 Wimbledon win was massive, the thing that number crunchers said was probably going to help him just keep an edge over Nadal, and a bit later when Wawrinka was rare in winning multiple slams over 30. For example, back in 2014 Five Thirty Eight ran an article Happy Birthday Nadal! You’re Probably Too Old to Pass Federer (and that was even if Federer's count stayed at 17). And now somehow it's become normal to win multiple slams over 30.
At the start of 2017, Djokovic seemed to have lost his edge a little, while Federer and Nadal were both on the comeback trail. A Fed-al final was talked about as the fairy-tale finish, but it didn't seem that likely. Not only did it come about, but it was an awesome final. And then Federer and Nadal split the next six slams between them. Federer got to No 1 (briefly) at 36. And now Djokovic has won the last three slams, so the relative slam count is exactly what it was at the start of 2017. That really wasn't how it was meant to work (and yes, does raise a concern about weakness in the generation below).
So it's true that Federer won lots of his slams when he was in his prime and there were fewer contenders (though you can only play the person on the other side of the net). But the flip side is that in recent years he's been competing with the rest of the Big Four when they were in their prime and he was five years older. And in the Slam-less years between 2013 and 2016 he was still frequently making slam semis and finals, spent a lot of the time ranked No 2, and remained competitive while his early competitors and peers retired.
So to me assessing it right now it's not just that Federer has 20 slams and has been No 1 for most weeks, but his general longevity and consistency. The number of consecutive slam quarter-finals he made. The fact that he won slams and was No 1 at 36. Those are really rare achievements.
I give Djokovic a slight edge over Nadal because his performance is a little more all-surface (and winning all the masters certainly helps). Even more so if he makes a double career slam at the French Open, which is a possibility (though, to be clear, Nadal has had plenty of success on grass and hard-courts, and both Federer and Djokovic have had success on clay - it is hard to separate the three). I also think it a little more likely that Djokovic will rival Federer for longevity than that Nadal will, and if he does it's much more likely that he will shoot to No 1 in my book.
-
I agree with the above, with Murray not fitting with the other three, Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. My personal ranking would be the same also.
Career/personal ranking:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Murray
-
In terms of how many slams then yes
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
But each play better and/or differently on each court, and Nadal plays insanely well in hot weathers (over 30/35)
-
Career:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
Favourites:
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
I hope they are more young players that are CONSISTENT on beating top players like Naomi Osaka but on the male side :D
-
I hope they are more young players that are CONSISTENT in beating top players like Naomi Osaka but on the male side :D
Isn't she a top player?
Also, imagine Tsitsipas won the three tops in this Aus open! I believe he is going to be in the next gen of tops.
-
Isn't she a top player?
Also, imagine Tsitsipas won the three tops in this Aus open! I believe he is going to be in the next gen of tops.
On the male side.
Tsitsipas beating Federer was so spectacular. But obviously it was foreseeable from Federer's age
-
I hope they are more young players that are CONSISTENT on beating top players like Naomi Osaka but on the male side :D
hmm tbf Osaka was ranked 4 when she entered the AO (now ranked No.1) and didn't face anyone ranked above her (no fault to her own though - can't pick who you play).
-
hmm tbf Osaka was ranked 4 when she entered the AO (now ranked No.1) and didn't face anyone ranked above her (no fault to her own though - can't pick who you play).
She was solid against Svitolina (won the WTA finals last year), Pliskova (former world number.1) and Kvitova (won a few grand slams). Had she played against Halep, Wozniacki and Kerber, it would probably be a close 3 set match going either way. I love Halep, but couldn't think of a better new no.1. Young, talented, consistent, humble, genuine, kind and charismatic. Not to mention that she carries the hopes of a country where racism against mixed-race, black and central asian people is rife (Osaka is Japanese/Afro-Haitian).
As for the young men, I think Khachanov is the most consistent at top level, apart from AO 2019 (lost to Bautista-Agut who was in top form in 3 close sets), lost in the last 3 grand slams to Nadal (4 tight sets), Djokovic and Zverev (was seeded 2 at French, lost in 5 tight sets). Also won the Paris masters late last year (beat Zverev, Thiem and Djokovic in convincing fashion). So many of the top young men's players have Russian roots; Khachanov, Medvedev, Rublev (has been injured for a chunk of last season though), Zverev, Shapovalov and Tsitsipas (mum was a top junior for the former Soviet Union). Maybe Popyrin may be included in that group, depending on how he progresses in the coming years.
EDIT: This may be one of the reasons rather than the only, but just read that Osaka represented Japan instead of US, as the US Tennis Association did not support her (as well as her sister's) development.
-
hmm tbf Osaka was ranked 4 when she entered the AO (now ranked No.1) and didn't face anyone ranked above her (no fault to her own though - can't pick who you play).
She did beat the current No 2... :P