Djokovic Vs Nadal

[Marvanelli]

Let’s not forget Federer has the same amount of GS wins as Djokovic. I remember somebody said that about Pete Sampras back in the 90s when he won his 14th. Records are their to be broken.

We have been extremely lucky to have seen the 3 greatest playing at the same time and all three have broken that record. Can I see somebody breaking it again? Absolutely . Perhaps not in my short lifetime left but it WILL be broken one day.

Obviously records are there to be broke. And never say never.

But these three have taken tennis to a whole new level. If these played in any other era, they’d be sitting on 30+ slams without any question. The standard they set is crazy.

Alcaraz is the next up and coming IMO, and if he achieves a fraction of what these 3 have done, then he’ll have had a great career.

Going to be a very sad day when they officially retire.

 

[Decent_Left]

We have been living through a point in time when the 3 greatest players of all time have been battering each other for over 15 years and I'd like to make 1 point about how good Andy Murray must have been in that period to have won 3 Grand Slams when those 3 were at their peak.

 

[ForssAwakens]

It only takes one player to be dominant for the record to be broke quite easily. If you have someone at the level of these 3 by themselves without any major competition

 

[Zoophonic]

It only takes one player to be dominant for the record to be broke quite easily. If you have someone at the level of these 3 by themselves without any major competition

As I said above it will be broken one day but not “easily”. What history tells us in tennis is that there has not been one dominant player. Borg had McCenroe, Jimmy Connors. Sampras had probably the weakest challengers in his career but still only won 14. Roy Emerson had Rosewall and Laver.

 

[Chris_Boro]

I don't think that individually, either of the 3 win that many more slams if the other 2 don't exist.

The reason is that the 3 of them pull each other along in terms of improvement and desire. Even Andy Murray pushed them that little bit more.

They are an enigma, just when you think one is done, they come back stronger.

 

[Marvanelli]

It only takes one player to be dominant for the record to be broke quite easily. If you have someone at the level of these 3 by themselves without any major competition

Although that can definitely happen, I just see them pushing each other.

It's not just tennis where the best players push each other.

It's in most sports.

Take football and Liverpool/Man City...without each other, they probably wouldn't be hitting those numbers in the PL.

Same goes for tennis with Novak/Rafa/Fed.

I do think you need competition to keep driving yourself, especially over 10-20 years.

 

[nowthen]

I'd also argue that Federer's "best" is better than anyone who has ever played the game.

the problem is because his style is much more high risk than the other two, it was harder for him to not play well and win against them. Who are essentially the two greatest defensive players of all time.

Rafa and Novak have styles with much more margin for error. If you want to win you're better off making fewer mistakes than hitting more winners. Bottom line is you get a point for hitting the ball in court one more time than your opponent, however that is achieved. Obviously winning is the name of the game and those two are the best at it.

but to do what Federer has playing that style of tennis (particularly on the slower courts they've started using for most of his career) is astonishing.

I remembered seeing this graphic years ago. It’s from the 2013 season. Roger actually plays with more safety than you’d think. Twice the net height in fact.

 

[ForssAwakens]

They may push themselves on, but these 3 would have more without the others there Because they have the drive. Maybe they’ve stayed in the longer.

You only have to look at sports goats and there in a league of their own but still have a desire to win

Phil Taylor
Tiger woods

Those 2 come to me straight away. They didn’t stop because the others weren’t anywhere near them

 

[changingman]

Gutted I only lasted until towards the end of the fourth (which it was looking like Novak would take) only to miss Rafa win the thing shortly after.

I've not watched a lot of tennis recently but I'd be surprised if Rafa has played that well in a while.

Full credit to Zverev coming through against Alcaraz as well, was hoping we'd have an all Spanish semi final but not to be this season.

Alcaras is going to be some player by the way (already is?) Combines Rafa's defensive ability but with a touch more aggression, I think he could go on to win multiple slams and maybe challenge the numbers we've seen the top 3 produce.

 

[Marvanelli]

Alcaras is going to be some player by the way (already is?) Combines Rafa's defensive ability but with a touch more aggression, I think he could go on to win multiple slams and maybe challenge the numbers we've seen the top 3 produce.

That's a very big and bold prediction. Especially given the fact he hasn't even won one.

Personally, like I mentioned earlier, Alcaraz for me is definitely the one who can take over tennis when these 3 finally retire, however it'll still take some effort to get anywhere near close to the amount of slams they've won.

It's not just the physical demands your body takes, but the sheer mental strength that is needed.

Gutted we won't see Alcaraz v Rafa in the semi. That had the makings of an absolute belter.

The new upcoming clay specialist versus the king of clay.

 

[Cardiffdaffs]

Gutted I only lasted until towards the end of the fourth (which it was looking like Novak would take) only to miss Rafa win the thing shortly after.

I've not watched a lot of tennis recently but I'd be surprised if Rafa has played that well in a while.

Full credit to Zverev coming through against Alcaraz as well, was hoping we'd have an all Spanish semi final but not to be this season.

Alcaras is going to be some player by the way (already is?) Combines Rafa's defensive ability but with a touch more aggression, I think he could go on to win multiple slams and maybe challenge the numbers we've seen the top 3 produce.

Interesting how he will fare on grass.

 

[Cardiffdaffs]

As I said above it will be broken one day but not “easily”. What history tells us in tennis is that there has not been one dominant player. Borg had McCenroe, Jimmy Connors. Sampras had probably the weakest challengers in his career but still only won 14. Roy Emerson had Rosewall and Laver.

Sampras realy did have it "easy" compared to others. Jim Courier Michael Chang Becker and Agassi on the wane

 

[changingman]

Interesting how he will fare on grass.

His loopy forehand will take away some advantage on grass but it looks to me like he can stay in points and counter punch so I expect he'll do quite well.

Re: my prediction, you might be right - he would probably need to go at 2 a year for the rest of his career to come close?

That said, I can see him dominating on clay and he's already won a Masters on hard so it could be possible.

My tip was always Tsitipas when he came through but he's not quite done it, yet.

 

[festa5]

I remembered seeing this graphic years ago. It’s from the 2013 season. Roger actually plays with more safety than you’d think. Twice the net height in fact.

View attachment 39587

That's a good stat and a fair point. But it's not just about net clearance.

Federer plays far more aggressively, he comes to the net more and attacks the ball more. I'd guess that figure there might be his average net clearance but when he takes the ball on (which he does more frequently) then he'll flatten it out and it'll be much closer to the net. He also tends to play closer to the baseline than Djokovic and definitely Nadal.

All of that is much more high risk tennis.

 

[nowthen]

That's a good stat and a fair point. But it's not just about net clearance.

Federer plays far more aggressively, he comes to the net more and attacks the ball more. I'd guess that figure there might be his average net clearance but when he takes the ball on (which he does more frequently) then he'll flatten it out and it'll be much closer to the net. He also tends to play closer to the baseline than Djokovic and definitely Nadal.

All of that is much more high risk tennis.

But if you like at his net play stats. Times at the net and points won. That stat will be high, so is that not the safer play? The play that should be made more often?

 

[festa5]

But if you like at his net play stats. Times at the net and points won. That stat will be high, so is that not the safer play? The play that should be made more often?

It's probably a little bit complicated (and someone with more expertise than me would probably explain it better) but I'd say those numbers are so good because his execution is exceptional despite it being a more risky strategy than pure baseline play.

And that's kind of the point with Federer. Throughout his career he's tended to make very few unforced errors despite playing very aggressively. Most players playing that style would make far more errors, but because of his ridiculous talent he doesn't.

 

[nowthen]

It's probably a little bit complicated (and someone with more expertise than me would probably explain it better) but I'd say those numbers are so good because his execution is exceptional despite it being a more risky strategy than pure baseline play.

And that's kind of the point with Federer. Throughout his career he's tended to make very few unforced errors despite playing very aggressively. Most players playing that style would make far more errors, but because of his ridiculous talent he doesn't.

It is more complicated. But the stats for most players at the net are also pretty good. Usually because they’re coming in haven hit a quality approach. Fed is sheer quality, a ballerina on the court. He’s the GOAT for me. In his style, his personality and everything he brings to the court.

 

[festa5]

It is more complicated. But the stats for most players at the net are also pretty good. Usually because they’re coming in haven hit a quality approach. Fed is sheer quality, a ballerina on the court. He’s the GOAT for me. In his style, his personality and everything he brings to the court.

Yep. They pick and choose their moment to approach. Most players only approach when the odds are heavily in their favour.

If players came in at every opportunity (like some did back in the day) the numbers would be much worse.

If you play more aggressively then you tend to got more opportunities to approach as you won't be stood as far behind the baseline and you'll get more short balls to attack.

 

[changingman]

Must admit I was in admiration of Alcaraz yesterday...his "normal game" wasn't working so he changed it up with a couple of serve/volleys - both probably better quality than out and out serve volleyers of yesteryear.

I know it's probably true of most sports but tennis really feels like the technique and athleticism have improved exponentially over the last 20 or so years (which coincides with me hanging my racket up )

 

[festa5]

Must admit I was in admiration of Alcaraz yesterday...his "normal game" wasn't working so he changed it up with a couple of serve/volleys - both probably better quality than out and out serve volleyers of yesteryear.

I know it's probably true of most sports but tennis really feels like the technique and athleticism have improved exponentially over the last 20 or so years (which coincides with me hanging my racket up )

I think it definitely has. Obviously racket technology too. There's so much to tennis from a biomechanical standpoint and obviously as the technology has advanced to understand that better the players are developing techniques that enable them to more efficiently maximise the power and spin.

I play to a good club level and even there the topspin some players can generate now is a lot more compared to when I first started playing.