Rafa had more points… he had won 4 masters 1000 and RG that year. Points were doubled after that. Additionally you have to look Rafa’s points not in september, just 1 day prior to Alcaraz age after us open…
Doubling points from 2005 probably overestimates 2005 points relative to current points. Points for slam/masters winners currently are twice what was given in 2005, however, points for other results such as SFs, QFs, etc. were not quite doubled and the other tournaments had significantly less scaling when the ranking point distribution was changed in 2009. However, rafa in 2005 still would have more points than alcaraz currently has after even a pessimistic scaling.
@@jacobschmidt2709 In 2005 Nadal had 79-10 record for the year. If not for Federer's 81-4, he would've been very dominant #1. Alcaraz has 59-9 in 2022. Chances that he will go close to 20-1 for the remainder of the year are not high. Also keep in mind that Alcaraz did not have anybody in 2022 draws resembling prime Federer, with whom Nadal was competing. Correction: I did not include Davis Cup latest results yet in the database, so Alcaraz already has 60-10. Which makes his task even harder for the rest of the year.
@@jacobschmidt2709 Yes he is, the game has evolved to be so physical and the younger players are always learning from the past and implementing new advancements in fitness and training. Plus we must not forget that 2005 was the year that Rafa was diagnosed with Perthe Foot and had to adjust accordingly. Hard courts were the biggest challenge for him to adapt in terms of his foot.
Gill, in 2005 Grand slams used to be worth 1000 points, masters 500 etc. I'm surprised you don't know this 😄. So, Nadal would've had around 3000 points more in Septembar compared to Alcaraz this year.
Gill the ranking points system was changed in 2009 where all tournaments were doubled. September 2005 Federer actually had around 12000 points converted into todays era, Rafa had around 8000 points
2004-2007 federer was a completely different animal. i lived it. the arm and racket speed and the way you see the ball just explode off of alcaraz's forehand now was wat federer's forehand was during 2004-2007, except federer's technique was far superior. think of alcaraz's forehand now, its massive but its very hit or miss. now imagine that same forehand but IT NEVER MISSES. that was federer's forehand during his prime years. 2008 and beyond, federer's forehand lost a lot of racket speed and spin and he changed it to a much flatter shot and was much more error prone. also, what people tend to forget is, during 2004-2007, federer was the second best defensive player in the world, behind nadal. federer was SO quick, and if he could get his racket on the ball, he almost always got it back onto court. federer's spot serving and backhand got better post 2007, but I've never seen anything quite like prime federer. he was a fucking ninja on court.
I'm a Rafa fan and I would never diminish Federer. He changed the game and took it to a level that everyone had to match. I have no problem with arguments for any of the three of them. Everyone benefited from this trivalry.
man that dreaming bit was hilarious, also really liked the way you discussed tiers. i think its a perfect way to dividie players when margins are so fine and opinions so subjective
I think Nadal's lack of grunting (alongside his reduced serve power) may have been related to his ongoing abdominal tear issue. Grunting or shouting puts extra tension through the abdominal muscles - try it!
Historically, the one holding the most GS has been considered the GOAT. It was one of the key arguments of Federer fanboys when Nadal was behind yet extending his lead in their H2H.
Yep, the ranking points were doubled sometime after 2005 I think in 2009, initially a GS was 1000 pts but was doubled to 2000, and so forth, so Federer having 6000 pts in 2005 would mean 12000 pts in 2022, still significantly higher than Alcaraz's pts today.
This guy made his own point system and did the entire Open Era with it. It is awesome. You can find it by G oog ling: 100 Greatest: Men's Tennis Players, 1968-2022 beatles1964
No-grunt Nadal means the abdomen injury really hurt. He went totally silent during the Wimbledon quarterfinal and hasn't been able to grunt since. After the injury, he only grunted on key shots where he was trying to inject extra pace.
The best mover ever?Carlitos and the young Rafa were incredible for sure.And also Gael of course.But for the movement of Roger has to be considered because of his anticipation,so much so that we often didn’t even notice!Years ago i filmed Rogers’feet for about 20 minutes,it was a thing of beauty to look at!
@@deltamarquees8158 Absolutely of course!Totally agree!Has anyone ever shown such Flexibility!Also,more anybody i have ever seen,Novak has a special superpower in that he seems to have several gears that are only used when he absolutely needs to deploy those gears be it the ground strokes on both sides.AND the serve.Amazing!
One of my theory on why Federer changed his forehand - whether intentionally or subconsciously - was back pain/ stress. He had a ton of rotation on his back for his earlier forehands and there was more shoulder/ arm stress probably from raising the racquet so high. His body was also more angled, putting more pressure on the legs. Now this probably doesn't just apply to Federer but to every player ever, since strokes do change gradually.
Hey, Former Semi-pro player here! I believe that he changed his forehand because it lets him stay close to the baseline and make better on the rise and half-volley shots. The legendary down-the-line Aussie Open forehand is an example of that. :)
Good point about Wimbledon GOAT. There is something really special about it that the other tournaments just don't have. I always remember Federer talking about just enjoying walking around the beautiful lawn courts and wonderful floral displays.
The only issue is that since about 1980 grass has been a minority surface. There is no grass season to speak of. So winning the oldest and most prestigious Slam is nice, but not that relevant as far as overall performance. Also winning Wimbledon without beingable to win Roland Garros (i.e., totally different surface at the 2nd-most prestigious Slam) makes one a one-dimensional player. The best example is Sampras who won 7 Wimbledons, but his best result at Roland Garros was only one appearance in the semis (1996). That is why Sampras was declared GOAT only by American media who have no appreciation for clay play since American players by and large have have performed poor on clay.
Iam so happy to hear this as fed fan After every one said rafa is goat I had painfully accepted it but today realised its who wins more Wimbledon Is goat. Iam so happens.
@@danbotez1307 well yes the media pick and choose their info and favourites. To me, Sampras wasn't a player with flair, or someone I enjoyed watching. Yes he won but it seemed to me the dawn of the bullet serving and multiple aces - with little rallying - was a big part of his game, and those point make for dull tennis. Part of 🐐 status IMO is to bring magic. I guess there are some points of magic with Novak, but say a Meddy Vs Novak match I probably wouldn't tune into, whereas Fed v Nadal brought out some spectacular points. Back to the grass point. In some ways the fact that there is so little on grass, makes it all the more special. I just think clay is kind of ugly, perhaps this is why lawn tennis is so elevated.
@@jacintacesp I agree that Sampras' game was terribly boring. I blame him for hurting American men's tennis by pushing ball-bashing (Exhibit A: Roddick). Also, as a person Pete was a real bore.😃
Funnily enough with all this sniping from fans about “The” GOAT, Nadal himself agrees with your tier system. After he won his 22nd he was interviewed and basically said right now there’s so little between the careers of the Big 3 that it doesn’t really matter about one being greater, the point is they’re their own group
Federer is third in Grand Slams, third in Masters titles, second in weeks at number 1, he has a negative head to head record against both of his biggest rivals. Let's be honest here he has no GOAT case anymore. He is the most beloved player of all time, that's for sure. But in sports, results matter, and you have to give credit where credit is due, and both Đoković and Nadal have passed him.
Prime Federer was way better than anyone. There are some people that consider Ayrton Senna as goat in F1, only winning 3 titles. Goat debate goes beyond numbers.
@@samirzakur Prime Federer's kryptonite was Rafa. Over the 2004-2007 time period Rafa had a winning H2H record vs. Fed : 8-6, of which two wins were on hardcourt. Federer never ever led their H2H record.
Fed’s forehand change is the main reason I say he has the 2nd best forehand ever rather than the best. At its peak it was incredible, but he changed it. I almost wonder if it had to do with soreness or injuries. Kinda similar to Nadal serving huge in 2010 but stopping after because of shoulder issues.
Those are some hefty caterpillars above Gil's eyes! An argument can be made for all 3 being the greatest! I think most would agree that Federer's game was the most beautiful to watch! The fluidity of his movement, his great hands, and his graceful technique! Also, Roger with the supreme forehand, especially in his prime! For Novak, the 38 Master's 1000's, the mental toughness and the ability to play the big points better than the other 2! Nadal's relentless effort and what I regard as the best conditioned tennis player- ever! And, his absolute dominance on clay, other than a few matches! An argument can be for each! PS- Michael Chang was the most relentless runner I've ever seen on the courts! He would run a ball down if it flew out of the stadium!
I prefer Rafa in all categories but we all get to love who we love in this lifetime! Rafa is the greatest (for now) but check back in 15 years and I strongly suspect it very well might be Carlos! (: (: (:
@@jacobschmidt2709 Wrong ! Nadal surpasses Djoker as well: 1) The highest % of Slams won out of Slams entered: 33 %............Novak is 30 % 2) The highest % of Slam finals won: 73.3 % ....................................Novak is 65.5 % 3) Rafa is 11- 7 vs. Novak in Slam matches 4) Rafa is 5-4 vs. Novak in Slam finals
@@danbotez1307 And how many times did they both face each other in Roland Garros compared to the Australian Open and Wimbledon? Slam stats are skewed for that reason.
I'm personally ecstatic that net play is on the rise in modern tennis with the strength of true all court players like Alcaraz, Kyrgios, Tiafoe, and even Sinner. As the courts get a bit faster hopefully this trend continues.
Gill, you touched a couple of questions that IMO are related to each other: 1) the dominance of Federer in 2004-07 and the reason it ended 2) why the forehand of federer started to change at the end of this period. My take on this is that around the end of 07 - the beginning of 08 Federer lost a small tad of his speed. His speed in 04-06 was otherwordly. He was every bit as fast as Nadal. But starting the 2008 it was not so anymore. He still had elite speed, but just a small fraction slower. And the result of this was that he had to perform his strokes in less ideal positions. Which in turn led to the change in the stroke technique - creating simplified version that could be still dangerous and attacking but not losing a reliability. It was a balancing act and he was not always successful. And it also answers the question about the reeason why his dominance came to an end.
Federer was the best actual tennis player in terms of skill and variety. He could do everything better than anyone. Novak and Rafa were more fit and stronger but were pretty conservative players in comparison.
@@jacobschmidt2709 Tennis includes clay play. Fed was definitely well below Nadal, and also below Djokovic on clay. Also, how come a so-called "best pure tennis player" have a losing record on both clay and outdoor hardcourt (the two major playing surfaces) vs. one of his contemporaries 😆
That’s a myth. His BH, his return were not better than Novak’s. You may say that his game was flashier, but not necessarily he had more skills or do everything better.
I would describe Đoković, Medvedev and Zverev as neutralizers. Agree with Gill about Nadal, he is a power player now, but still patient and consistent.
Not sure if this was the episode or another one where someone asked if Gill has a problem with Ruud. He (surprisingly) doesn't have a problem with him, but I'll share what I saw at the US Open: Gill was patiently waiting to sample some of the great food available at the Open. Just as the server brought Gill's order, Ruud suddenly showed up and grabbed Gill's order. The server asked Oh is this order for you? Ruud yelled JAAA! and walked out with Gill's order 😃
I'd put that debate in terms of the level each one of those players reached at any point in their carriers. My pick is Novak Djokovic, because he'd play for months on a level nobody could even get close to beating him. Nadal said after one of those matches, that he had never seen a player reach that level. Federer would have never admitted that, but you could see it in his behaviour after the series of losses
I think it was advantageous in some ways because it allowed him to have an Era on to himself before he could share the stage. If any other of big 3 had those years of being the lone top dog in most tournaments, I would presume they would have similar runs. It also meant that he had last time in his prime after the other two had ascended, so it had its downsides. There are pros and cons to it and I don't believe it should be anything to lament over.
As a diehard Fed fan, it's sorta hard for me to make a strong argument for him being GOAT, although he will forever be my personal GOAT. However, I think we could look at a couple of things. First, I think we can look at the age difference between him and Rafa and Nole. Although Roger played in the same era as the other two members of the big three, they are not the same generation. Roger's generation of players consisted of guys like Safin, Ferrero, Hewitt, and Roddick, who are all hall of famers. Roger is 41, while Rafa and Nole are 36 and 35, respectively. Roger has played 1,526 matches, while Rafa and Nole have played 1,280 and 1,216, respectively. Those 200+ extra matches make a difference. Second, Roger had a dominating stretch like no other. From 2004-2007, he was a winning machine. Outside of losing to Rafa on clay, he just wasn't losing that many matches. Rafa and Nole never put together a stretch like that. I think I read something the other day where it said that Roger won 23 or 24 level finals in a row at one point. Lastly, I think you have to look at his 237 consecutive weeks at #1. That's over 4.5 straight years being ranked #1. Not sure we are likely to see that happen again anytime soon.
From 2004-2007 Fed was not quite a winning machine. Rafa had 8-6 winning record over Fed during that period, and it was not all on clay. Rafa's first win over Fed was actually on hardcourt at the 2004 Miami. Fed tied the H2H record, for the first and only time in their rivalry, at the 2005 Miami. After that Rafa has held a winning H2H record vs Fed throughout the 2004-2007, and to date (i.e., 24-15).
@@danbotez1307 He was a winning machine. Look at how many titles he racked up during that period of time. From 2004-2007, Rafa had 2 non-clay wins over Roger. Yes, Rafa had an 8-6 head-to-head against Roger by the end of 2007, but half (7) of those matches were on clay. I’m not sure how Rafa having a winning record against Fed during that period even detracts from the fact that Federer was a winning machine during that period of time.
@@POK2008 He was a winning machine OFF clay. The two major surfaces the game is played on are outdoor hardcourt and clay (each having seasons of its own). Fed's being 2nd-3rd string on clay did not make him a winning machine at any time his career. It's true that Rafa has been the king on clay, but he also holds a 8-6 record vs Fed on outdoor hardcourt.
@@danbotez1307 2nd-3rd string on clay? That’s hilarious! He was clearly the 2nd best clay court player in the world for years. Let’s not act like the guy didn’t make 5 French finals. If not for playing against the greatest clay courter to ever live, he would have multiple French Opens. Like I said, the guy was a winning machine from 2004-2007. He won over 40 tournaments during that stretch.
Great show as always, Gil ! I agree that in general one can't and shouldn't pick a GOAT. However, relative comparisons can be made. There are some facts which prove IMHO that Rafa will end up superior to Fed: First the obvious ones: 1) 22-20 at Slams won; Rafa over 19 years of professional play vs. Fed over 22 years of professional play 2) 24-15 H2H record including 8-6 on outdoor hardcourt Then, other facts: 1) Rafa won 34 % of Slams entered, Fed won only 24.7 % of Slams entered. 2) Rafa won 73.3 % of Slam finals. Fed won only 64.5 % of Slam finals 3) Rafa is 10-4 vs. Fed in Slam matches. 4) Rafa is 6-3 vs. Fed in Slam finals IMHO Rafa ended Fed's prime with two blows: 1) Beating Fed at the '08 Wimbledon (i.e., on Fed's favorite surface) and 2) Beating Fed in the '09 AO final. It looked to me to that Fed's crying at the '09 AO awards ceremony was proof that he realized that his prime was over.
Federer completed the career slam and went past Sampras in the two slams following 09 AO, so no. I've heard the theory that the Djokovic loss at 08 AO ended his real prime, this was followed by being thrashed at the French and finally losing at Wimbledon.
@@alexobed4252 ..but won only 5 of 39 clay Masters entered.......and only a third were losses to Rafa. Fed in reality is not part of the all-time top-10 performers on clay.
@@joshforde698 Career Grand Slam is a media invention. The only Grand Slam is the calendar-year one.....and Safin in 2005 and Rafa on other years denied that to Fed. The only open-Era, calendar-year Grand Slam was achieved by Rod Laver in 1969. So no, Fed was never GOAT, just like Sampras, on account of his abysmal clay record, and Rafa ended his prime when he beat him on his best surface at Wimbledon 2008.
@@danbotez1307 But you have to take into account that Rafa, the clay goat, was always in the way and usually the only one that would stop Fed. Roger is much better on clay than the stats say. Moreover, Federer excelled much better on clay than Nadal did on indoor courts(Nadals 0 WTF's is the blackmark in the Spaniards career).
I don't think people are going to be overly concerned about who was the goat in the decades to come. This will be the goat era and all three will be celebrated. What I do suspect though is that then like now, Roger will be the one people want to watch.
How can you talk about the fastest movers without mentioning Djokovic. The young Djokovic was amazingly fast and had a real swashbuckling dynamic style which was so attractive and compelling to watch. How quickly you forget- fickle as can be. But then you are young , Gill...
@@GillGross easy to say 19 yr old Alcaraz is fast because nadal and djoker are almost at retirement. Every current player modeled their movement, fitness and defense from those two Original Gangsters. Alcaraz has an easier draw these days. Just saying.
Easy draw Imao just because Carlos didn’t face a top 10 player til final don’t mean it was a easy draw that’ was a pretty tough draw Cilic rd 4 Sinner qtr that has had good success against him and many people believe he win against Carlos Semis Tiafoe the guy that took out Rafa and Rublev Final Casper That draw overall outside of big 3 Was the toughest draw in long time Ya people will say anything to discount him if he wins a lot this will be Fed 2.0 with the weak era baloney u can only play who u can play
Love the advice from your coach. My left hand was mostly along for the ride. When i switched to the Pure Drive, i was finally able to get some power behind my one hander as well.
Love your content Gil. Just a short comment on your comparison on Alcaraz vs Nadal at 19. I think points allocation was different 2005 vs 2022. Rafa won rome, montecarlo roland garros barcelona, made final in miami in 2005 and he had 4600 points by september? If we add just those tourrnament points in 2022 he d be at 5100 solely from that.
Nadal had the better year so far, but Carlos had better grand slam results. Nadal was the better claycourt player and Carlos was the better hardcourt player.
1000% agree with the tier method for GOAT discussion… for me, the big three are a class above the all time greats like Sampras, Laver, and Borg… maybe two classes above players like Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, and Connors. But if I had to… In the deep, deep, deep details, I find the GOAT argument easiest to make for Djokovic. That is my method: for which player is the argument easiest to argue for. Federer has a big problem making the argument due to the level of talent he won the majority of majors against and trouble in the big three head to head. Nadal has a problem in never winning the year end tournament and being so heavily leaning toward clay as his dominant surface. (Not my opinion), but many discount clay as a surface compared to hard and grass. He also was basically shutdown in head to head against Djokovic on hard courts for a decade. Tough to argue GOAT there. Djokovic’s weakest vulnerability is that he gets twice as many majors a year on his best surface (hard court) to collect major titles. But all the other stats are there to make an easy argument for him… level of competition, head to head, etc. Regardless, the big three are the GOATs. Of this, there’s no debate. BTW: I’m a Rafa fan.
Excellent analysis, though I want to mention that you said Djokovic getting twice as many slams on hard as a slight of some sort, there are twice as many hard Court slams available per year than what there is off hard. So his ratio is pretty spot on.
"He also was basically shutdown in head to head against Djokovic on hard courts for a decade". The reverse is true on clay. Why is clay considered a less important surface? I've never understood that point of view. Except wimbledon, for me RG is my favourite slam becauce clay more difficult than hardcourt.
31:20 Is Alcaraz lucky to be No.1? Not at all, we all forget that Alcaraz real rise in the rankings only started in February in Rio. That's why he has only 6700 points and this makes his fast rise even more impressive. It means Alcaraz has very few points to defend until next February, watch him surpass the 10'000 mark until next year in the upcoming tournaments.
Alcaraz is great no doubt, but everybody knows that he would not be number 1 if not for this wacky year(Djokovic missing tournaments because of covid and politics and Wimby not awarding points). Number 3 is still pretty darn good.
Federer's argument for being the best ever: the length of his run of dominance in his prime, how well rounded his Grand Slams are with 5+ at three (only one for Nadal) and two 5 in a row streaks, his style of play. Though, I agree on the tier system rather than obsessing over the one.
Tennis is losing popularity- Pickle Ball is taking over- even Tennis Channel is devoting increasing time to pickle ball games and televising its tournaments. And you can understand why, with all the bloody-minded bureaucrats running tennis and the asinine decisions that have been made this year, whether it be the persecution and unfair treatment of Novak Djokovic, the banning of Russian and Belarus players, or not giving ranking points at Wimbledon, tennis is a mess. They need to weed out the idiots running it or it will cease to be a significant International sport .
Djokovic's net game has improved so much and his ability and willingness to serve and volley now has been something people has forgotten about, as the 2021 Aussie open final was forgotten very quickly it seems. He built the blueprint to beat meddy and many followed. Then Nadal's slice to his forehand in 2022 was also shown. Meddy has holes he needs to close.
GOAT debate is pointless, I hate it, and I'm so freaking sick of it. And this debate is pointless from the root, because they did not have an equal start. When the margins are so small and one starts in an already privileged position to succeed, things like that matter or other things like you said, everything being impacted by the COVID - lock-down impacting players’ momentum, cancellation of multiple events (Wimbledon, whole Asian swing, favourites events of certain one of them…), vaccination requirements, ‘luck’ in testing, and stuff. 35:40 and yes, you're wrong here, Gill. The ranking points were not the same as they are now.
Like you said Gill, being the first is always hardest. Setting the bar is harder than raising the bar. Federer took the slam race to a whole new level by getting to 20 as opposed to Sampras' 14. If we disregard Rafa and Nole for a sec: maybe if Federer got to 15 or 16, people would still argue that Sampras is the GOAT. Similarly, I think Djokovic or Nadal need to surpass Federer by much more than a few slams for them to be regarded as the undisputed GOAT. Imo this argument is consistently glossed over in the GOAT debate, although it is an objective metric. Sampras set the bar, and Federer set a totally new bar by beating his slam tally by 42 % (20/14=1.42). Whereas Rafa as of now only surpassed Federer by 10%. Not saying this argument makes Federer the undisputed GOAT, just that it's a flawed metric to only be looking at total amount of slams. Simply put: usually relative (%) metrics are more pertinent than absolute metrics, and that should count for something in the GOAT debate
Federer still has 100+ weeks at number 1, 6 WTF's to Nadals 0, was a more all-around player(Nadal sucked on indoor courts and was inconsistent on grass), has more titles and was undeniably the better pure tennis player. Moreover, Federer was the best player of the 2000s and Djokovic the best player of the 2010s. Nadal never had an era of dominance as the undisputed best p layer. It's not as clear-cut as it seems.
@@jacobschmidt2709 but they all say Nadal has 22 slams Double career golden slam H2h vs roger novak in gs It's not who dominated more or having their era its anout overall career. Who cares if u have a fluent or bad game wen u dont win. Inconsistent on grass player has 2 Wimbledon consistant player on all surfaces has how many fo? Gs are wat matters not ur 250 titles or wta 3 setters
I'm surprised you don't notice the massive difference in speed of court changes at 45:45. Perhaps they're not the court speed per say, but potentially due to heavier balls, but regardless the game on average is so much slower in the 2010s compared to 2000s. Even late 2007-2010 looked like it was slowing down quite a bit. We didn't get rallies in Wimbledon until like 2002, although that's also due to superior string technology leading to far more top spin consistency.
Love your take on GOAT- Other factors: Surface has been slowed over time favoring base-liners Master’s tournaments finals used to be best of 5 (so more tennis played for earlier eras) Disproportionate tournaments on certain surfaces vs others (eg, clay) favoring specialists of one surface
Well then you should also consider that there's definitely way more competition on some surfaces...hard courts are everywhere...here in North America, that's all most ppl play on
Also Federer had Sampras in his way for the first part of his career, so only had a short window before Rafa and Novak became big threats. That said, Rafa was able to win against a GOAT from a young age...
Brady has been very eloquent about GOAT talk…and i Agree,it is insulting to the true greats of any sport.Ok the numbers are not to ignored,fair enough,however as much as I revere Rafa and Novak,and the other great legends,Federer is the greatest player I have ever seen.Your Fed piece the other day articulated so well what RF means to the game.He attempted shots no one ever has,because he saw something he felt was possible that no one else would.Time and time again,for years and years Roger did this, and he made it look easy!So,with the greatest respect to Rafa,Novak,Borg,McEnroe,Laver,Sampras,Andre, and a few more,these magicians,Roger will revered in a way that is a “tier” of his own for decades to come.
Dominance is a tricky concept because it's dependent on the level of competition during the time period in question. Rod Laver was pretty dominant during his time but he is not normally in the conversation for GOAT.
Literally Nadals and particularly Federers fans constantly berated and *used stats* against Djokovic all the freaking time and...now suddenly that Novak is breaking and making new stats, same people that were *using stats against Djokovic* turned into pure hatred and started saying how stats and records are not the most important because you need to be loved or play a beautiful tennis. Back in the days Federer fans stated on daily basis his records as the supreme argument on the GOAT topic. 🗣🗣🗣17🏆+ 286🥇= 🇨🇭🐐 Sorry but *facts are what really matter* not personal and biaised point of view. *The most successful and dominant player in a sport is the most legitimate to be called GOAT* , it's as logic as that, no need today to create a new narrative just because an idol lost his records 🙄 The GOAT need to hold the biggest achievements in his sport 🏆🥇, a objective way to judge this debate *This is Sport🎾* (the performance is what matters the most) not a fashion week or a Miss Universe ceremony or iceskating "Grand Slam tennis is not a popularity context, being that guy everyone loved doesn't get you the W and that's it all about. that comes from supreme talent multiplied by hard work time. They might think you're cold, cliical, boring and a brat, IT DOESN'T MEAN A THING" *John McEnroe*
The greatest of all time does not mean only winning a lot, but also being a good sport. That the category at which Djoker is way behind Fed and Nadal. Just like Serena will never be considered GOAT given her lack of class and sportsmanship.
@@danbotez1307 This question of sportsmanship and charisma is so subjective For some people is Federer or Nadal, for others is Djokovic It's such a subjective criteria It's certainly not because you judge specifically a player as an ideal model of sportsmanship that means all of us share the same feelings and thoughts. Learn to be more open minded and accept different opinions. Djokovic always the first one to clap for a good point by his opponent. Always the first one to say good things about opponent in victory or defeat in a press conference. He doesn't laugh at weaker opponents or ask opponents box to shut up when losing. Surely more humble than others, which of-corce you wont want to acknowledge. Djokovic has earned everything in his career, has a loyal wife who has been following him since he was a teenager, 2 beautiful children, an enviable situation, and that doesn’t stop him from leaving his ivory tower to support the low ranked players in order to live of their passion, to vote for a boycott in China if necessary in order to clarify the situation of Peng Shuai or to condemn the discriminatory ban against Russians and Belarusians players at Wimbledon (Federer hasn't said a single word about it as president of the ATP Player Council...) *The Serb is a man of duty and this is pure class* Not because Occidental medias and their obnoxious crowd in stadiums want to portray Novak as a villain that he can't be perceived as a real hero and leader for many others persons in others part of the world (Asia, Africa, East countries). A lot of respect for Novak who stands for others, don't stay inside his confort zone because too scared to lose privileges and get criticisms.
@@mickaellandry9726 I was not talking charisma. I was taking about class. Djoker confirmed his lack of class earlier this year when he cheated and lied prior to the AO,
@@danbotez1307 that's a lie Djokovic didn't break any rules any laws in Australia. Their government concluded that Novak Djokovic holds anti-vaccination views and could be a threat to Australia's public health. 🤦♂️ It was confirmed that Novak didn't break any rules & there were no determined issue with his paperwork or exemption, which was valid. Former minister of Immigration Hawke stated this clearly in the court docs. He was deported for the govt not liking his public opinions, that's it. Nothing to do with cheating, no need to manipulate the reality in order to portray again the man as a villain. Please stop the cap just because you have personally a lot bitterness towards Novak 🤦♂️
@@marklundie7637 plus, in terms of goat, he’s been the goat longer LoL. Cuz everyone even nole and Nadal assumed they would never catch up so they just agreed Federer was the goat until Nadal and nole both for sure just crushed all his records and he was THEN not the universal goat but, it’s a solid 10 years of being goat
@@UTUBE3JC Whoever wins the final GOAT battle between Nadal and Djokovic will be the GOAT for a very long time. Especially considering no one else is currently anywhere near them. As a Djokovic fan I hope it’s him who ends up on top. We will see.
Let’s learn to be obnoxious with the most obnoxious fan base: the Fedtards. First, it was all about the records: when Fed held all of them, he was hailed as the GOAT by all the fan base and most of the media. Now that his records have been surpassed, they resort to: 1) it’s about the gamestyle: Federer plays the most beautiful tennis; therefor, he is the GOAT 2) talent: Federer is more “talented” than Nadal and Djokovic (which is a fallacy in itself); so he must be the GOAT 3)there is no GOAT! You can’t determine a GOAT in tennis, whether because it would be too subjective or just because they are too close to each other in achievements. Tsc, tsc… like I said, the double standard is real. Not so long ago, that same tard base, was proclaiming to the wind that the old men was the greatest ever to ever set foot in a tennis court. One word: disgusting!
Well put ! The Fedtards are a cult. No matter what facts one presents to them with they will always stick by Fed being the possessor of the purest tennis game, the most talented of the big 3 and so on. Nevermind that he was the least successful of the top 3 on clay, the one whose Slams were won over a much longer time period than either Rafa or Novak, the only one of the top 3 who wasn't capable of winning 3 consecutive Slams on 3 different surfaces in the same calendar year. While putting on a classy front, he was smug, not always gracious in defeat especially when Rafa started beating him in his prime (2005-2007), not below swearing at his opponents, or crying like a wimp at a Slam awards ceremony. His celebrating his 15th Slam with donning a jacket decorated with a "15" logo was by no means a class act.
While putting on a classy front, Federer was smug, not always gracious in defeat especially when Rafa started beating him in his prime (2005-2007), not below swearing at his opponents, or crying like a wimp at a Slam awards ceremony. His celebrating his 15th Slam with donning a jacket decorated with a "15" logo was by no means a class act.
I think that there are even tiers amongst what we consider all-time greats. For example, you wouldn't put Lendl or Edberg, who are certainly all-time greats, in the same tier as Federer, Rafa, and Novak. I consider Federer, Rafa, and Novak as tier 1, or what I like to call God tier. You can maybe even put Sampras and Laver in tier 1 as well. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that I, like you, Gill, group players into tiers as well.
I think big 3 have to be in a tier of their own because they are so far ahead of the rest in grand slam titles. And did it against each other. Like, Nadal is at 22 and Sampras is at 14. That’s such a massive difference.
@@SJ-di5zu I pretty much agree with this. That's why I said "maybe" with Sampras and Laver. I think it's pretty much the big 3 and then everyone else. That's why I consider them God tier. They are pretty much the Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades of tennis.
Regarding Nick, I don't think scar tissue is an issue because he went on to win in the tournament immediately following wimby, and also had a decent run at the US open all the whilst defeating Medvedev twice in that period
Federer’s legacy can definitely be measured now that it’s over, but can’t really be compared to Nadal and Djokovic yet because they’re probably gonna win more slams. I think Federer’s period of dominance at his peak along with his overall number of titles (which I don’t think Nadal or Djokovic will catch) are his two biggest advantages. I still think 2005 Nadal was better than current Alcaraz. Does anyone think Alcaraz would be able to challenge and defeat Federer at his absolute peak multiple times? Once at a slam as well? I don’t believe so.
@@pana71 Weak era isn’t a fair criticism tbh. Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have all won against weak fields in certain points of their careers, and Federer still had to deal with young Nadal who was dominating clay courts. Plus he spent his mid-late 20s and early 30s in the strongest era ever. I do kinda agree with the 250s criticism though. Anyone who’s making a real, nuanced GOAT debate is gonna look at the bigger titles. I think his dominance is his best argument, but I’m beginning to think Federer is probably finishing third.
@@SJ-di5zu No ofense, but this 250 titles is absurd. Federer has more 250, because basel, halle and dubai were not always considerer 500, but anyone knew they were stronger tournaments than regular 250, because it brought more top 10 players. Now, Fed has played 1 250 tournaments per year on average. Same goes for Nadal and Djokovic. Tehnically, Nadal and Djokovic had the same chances at winning more 250, yet they failed. You win what's in front of you, every title is important, otherwise, there is no point in playing the tournament.
(SPOILERS?) I actually cheered out loud when you made Carlitos your 7th pick, as if it had any consequence at all but yeah I agree. I wonder if the apparent favoritism would result in any friction between Alcaraz and the rest of the new gen pool.
I wish Federer continues to play competitively in doubles although considering he's got a business empire to run can't imagine him doing anything but occasional exhibition matches for fans and for charities etc.
As for peak Federer, I saw him through that and to be honest it only struck me as not himself changing as much, but rather Nadal as rising up. Federer was clearly steps ahead of others in his ability to play against any opponent once he began to really dominate with his serve, forehand and transition game. He also was certainly the best mover at the time. But then Nadal came along and he began to chip into Federer with his style of play. Other opponents of Federer's didn't seem to have the patience of game and big match mental strength to win semis and finals very often. Federer held back Nadal and Djokovic long enough but they were just developing. Federer outplayed Djokovic at Australia 2007 and could have easily gone to five sets at the US open, great year for Federer, kinda, but only one year later Djokovic was much tougher in the matchup in Australia and won the whole thing. Then Federer has an average year, fully obliterated in the french and just snagged at his most dominant tournament, Wimbledon. Djokovic still finding himself and loses to roddick at the US and Federer gets there once again, but for the last time in his life, unbelievably. Never would have imagined he could never win that title again after being so dominant in the US for five straight years (although 2007 final was too close to say dominant). Then it's 2009, it's pretty even overall, Federer could have/should have easily gone down two sets to none against Roddick on grass (unthinkable only two or three years ago given how much smarter at tennis Federer was than Roddick). Federer still just taking the odd couple slams and by slim margins some of them. Federer shouldn't have lost in the US but ego got in the way and he challenged del Potro forehand too often and paid for it. Then it's 2010 and it's the beginning of the end, frankly. Nadal way too good in big matches, Federer seems to never come to the net anymore and play dynamically, just losing from the baseline. As a Federer fan, this was depressing period of time to watch. I think Nadal and Djokovic were their own forces and Djokovic took longer to mature competitively than the warrior Nadal but Nadal always had some extremely difficult plays that Federer struggled with. Otherwise, Federer beat just about everyone else still for a long time, up until maybe 2013 or so. Still, he was right up there until the end and if he weren't injured, he'd still contend for majors on skill alone. I think even if Djokovic and Nadal during their best years played Federer in his best years, Federer would lose them more often than win them. Their games were nicely counter-able to Federer's with their baseline dominance and athletic ability to handle transition games and slice balls (Nadal especially). Players from 90's and 2000's couldn't do that as much because they didn't need to, they all played a slice when they were on the run to their backhand. Nowadays it's more common to see open stance sliding backhand from around the knees than a slice. Federer is still the greatest or most influential player in the way of the last few generations that his next level of play to pick apart his compatriots at the time, spawned this newer style of all around athletic consistency paired with aggressive weapons and unbreakable mental toughness. Of which two chief rivals came out to topple him. It's been amazing to watch but as a fan of Roger's it's still been hard to watch knowing that he could win on any given day (except clay) but just had to really redline his game to get through them. Alcaraz looks like he's gonna cause another huge stylistic evolution too.
In short, for all his achievements Fed ends up #3 all-time as far as overall performance. Even during Fed's 'golden' years (2004-2007) Nadal always maintained an winning record over Fed : 8-6 (Fed tied the record once in 2005, but never led their H2H record). So as Fed retires Nadal > Fed.
@@danbotez1307 well from 2004-2007 how many of nadals wins were on clay? 6/8. not to discredit them but no ones ever had a positive h2h against nadal on clay over a span of years
We will see Carlos while he has a lot to defend next year he has barely any points in AO,MC,Rome,RG,Wimbledon,Canada,Cincy he only has 650 points in these 7 tournaments if Carlos holds #1 to end of this year and does semis/fina/ win at AO next year he keep it for awhile tbh
Honestly Federer is the 3rd GOAT people must stop these ridiculous things, because when Federer had the numbers they said he is GOAT even when Nadal had a H2H record over him
@@colethomas903 wrong . They faced on hard court 24 times . And many of feds wins over rafa on hard court came when he was out of his prime (6 straught wins on hc by 34 and older fed)so that argument doesn't work .
I’m not wrong your missing my point in Fed peak how many matches did they play on a HC and compare that to how many times Roger played Rafa peak on clay
On HC in Fed peak he was 4-3 vs Nadal where was Nadal in all these HC tournaments in Fed domination losing while Fed was so good on clay he keep reaching the semis or final if Fed had lost early he preserved tons of lost and the head to head would be so much closer then u wouldn’t be using it if it was 18-17
Your logic presumes that tennis started 20 years ago. For most of tennis history, grand slams was NOT a measurement of who was the greatest because only amateurs could play in slams. So, the great players would win a few majors and then turn pro and no longer be eligible for slams (unless they were wealthy). In fact, in the amateur days, the best players weren’t playing the slams. So having said that, it is impossible to compare players today with players of the past….and in the best case, any claims of GOAT are highlyvsubjective at best.
Federer still has 100+ weeks at number 1, 6 WTF's to Nadals 0, was a more all-around player(Nadal sucked on indoor courts and was inconsistent on grass), has more titles and was undeniably the better pure tennis player. Moreover, Federer was the best player of the 2000s and Djokovic the best player of the 2010s. Nadal never had an era of dominance as the undisputed best player. Moreover, everybody knows that Nadal should be at 21 slams if not for that Djokovic deportation. It's not as clear-cut as it seems.
@@jacobschmidt2709 yeah having second thought you're correct, Federer and Nole are complete all surface players, unlike Nadal who didn't win atp finals and have way less weeks at number one
I think an issue with one handed backhands seems to be receiving heavy topspin. That's a big reason nadal has been able to prey on one-handers throughout his career. I wouldn't be surprised if most players stick with two-handers due to the extra stability and control. The best-backhanders in the world imo are Novak, Daniil, and Sascha. They may not have destructive power, but the flat ball with depth gives opponents alot of trouble.
The points system was different in 2005 grand slams were only 1000 points and masters were half a so on. Nasal would have had 9000 plus points with todays system. This also makes senses considering that 2005 federer was possibly federer most dominant year with 88 wins and 4 loses, but with the old system he still has less than 7000 points.
The big 3 is the greatest mens players, people go by slams, but they have records that are outstanding some more then others in certain areas and some has less in certain areas, it goes down to you can't talk about one without talking about the other 2, all three are great. All 3 are goats🐐 🐐 🐐.
And as for "women's GOAT a little easier" I agree. Navratilova - total titles: 356 - Singles Titles 167. Serena - total titles 97 - Singles titles 72. So - Martina has Serena's "97" titles - once, twice, three times over and then another 65 titles "over." 1st Major 17 yrs - last Major month shy of 50 years; Serena 1st Major 17 yrs, Last Major 35 yrs - would need to win a Major in 2032 to tie that - not even close man! Serena's total singles titles at 72 - Martina won Singles and Doubles in the same tournament 84 times, read that again 84 times....there is NO contest for GOAT here.
Tenis greatest records between the big 3: Most slams: Nadal Most masters: Djokovic Most titles: Federer Most tour finals: Federer Most time spent in top 10: Federer Most consecutive weeks in top 10: Nadal Most wins against top 10: Djokovic Most weeks at no.1: Djokovic Most year end no.1: Djokovic Most consecutive weeks: Federer Most wins: Federer Most hard titles: Federer Most grass titles: Federer Most clay titles: Nadal Those record are based on their whole career, another great record that I didn't mention is win rate(as Djokovic and Nadal careers are not over yet). As you can see Federer holds 7 records, Djokovic has 4 and Nadal has 3. This can change in the future. That doesn;t mean that Federer is the GOAT or the other 2 are, because I personally don't believe in this, as former legends, statisticians, commentators have a hard time deciding that, so there is no point in arguing. I just hate the fact that people mention that Federer had no more records, every since Djokovic broke his majors one. As you can see he still holds and will hold pretty impresive records.
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 So what ! During that time frame Rafa, although 5 years younger than Fed, had an 8-6 H2H winning record vs. him. Rafa also denied Fed winning a calendar-year Slam in 2006 and 2007. By now Rafa has won 22 Slams over 19 years of professional play compared to Fed's 20 Slams over 21 years of professional play.
The question about Federer's forehand is fascinating, and deffo interested to hear what people 'in-the-know' think about it. Having used Federer's rackets (at least customised versions of them) the feedback you get is very interesting and you can understand why there was an evolution. There's a guy called 15 points of tennis on RUclips who has tackled this very subject and is worth checking out. His insight is really really interesting.
Definelty as u play more u kind of evolve and change some shots, i have developped a full western grip without necessarly planning for it. It just happened
Regarding Wimbledon, you say its not about grass but the game was and is in some parts called “lawn tennis” is it not so its the most original surface 😅. Djokovic might cross that too sadly for fed
Point were doubled at 1 point, so counting Nadal's 2005 points, counting them today, you would need to double it. So based on that Nadal would have more points than Alcaraz today 😉
It is still true. All-time, Laver is superior to Fed having won not one but two calendar-year Grand Slams (one being the only one in the Open Era) and Rafa dominated Fed all around: 24-15 etc.....
every one of the big three ,have his numbers for example : who is more consistent ? - nadal the only no.1 in three different decades - federer for the most consecutive weeks no.1 - novak for the most weeks as no. ///numbers can not tell the whole story ,,,different tastes wimby is the worst in terms of quality tennis ( fact ) , r.g is the best
My hope is that Carlos will get the YE#1 - we will see how he does in the last 4 tournaments he plays in 2022 but I am certain he can do it. I just don't believe Casper has earned it. I think Rafa will be busy with his wife and his new baby, doubt he will try for it. Medvedev and Tsitisipas would have to make finals or win all the remaining titles and for others to be knocked out early too. Most likely Carlos will have deep runs in at least 3 of the 4 remaining tournaments he will play (Astana, Basel, Paris Masters, and ATP finals). If Casper somehow manages to get it he will not have earned it imo (I like Casper, don't get me wrong). Carlos has achieved the most in 2022: the most titles, the most finals, the most semis, the most matches won, the biggest gain from #32 in January to #1 in September. I just hope Carlos plays well and is able to do it!
Nobody deserves the number 1 ranking outside of Djokovic and Nadal this year(Politics + no points awarded in Wimby) tbh. However, if anybody outside those 2 had to have it this year, it would definitely Carlitos. I 100% agree with you about Ruud.
Nadal deserve it because he won 2 slams but let’s not kid yourself when you only do good mostly in the majors plus get injury your margin of error to get to #1 ain’t as good Carlos has 2 tournaments this year he miss both to fatigue
People have an unhealthy addiction with numbers when it comes to sports. This team won X, this player has Y amount of records. It really is silly at times. Plenty of people will say that to them Rafa is the greatest, others will say Novak and others might say Roger. And all 3 are valid. All 3 are in that tier 3 or 4 steps ahead of everyone else. The differences are minute but what really matters is what that player made the fans and people in general feel. And that should be respected.
Both Fed and Rafa are worldwide respected. Rafa is an inspiration for all people worldwide for his magic play, resilience and humility, Fed is respected for his class and elegant play. Not so much for humility.
@@colethomas903 Before September Rafa had already won RG, Rome, MC, Canada, Barcelona, Hamburg, Acapulco and had a final in Miami. That alone is over 7000 and I’m not even counting every other tournament where he lost earlier.
And what did federer do in 2005 ? pre September oh 9 titles pre USO win come on now Fed still been ahead of him roger worse tournament he played was MC I bet money lol Fed been ahead
I feel Djokovic finals vs Federer will have a longer lasting effect than Nadal's with Federer. Both for Federer and Djokovic, even when both probably would say their biggest rival was Nadal.
Wrong ! Nadal was Federer's rival in Federer's prime. Their 2008 Wimbledon final is considered the greatest match of all time. Nadal denied Federer GOAT status by preventing him to win a calendar-year Grand Slam in both 2006 and 2007. Those are facts Fed's fans and him are painfully aware of. Djokovic denying Fed his 21 Slam is somewhat equivalent to Medvedev denying Djokovic his 21st Slam. In fact the later is more important since Medvedev denied Djokovic a calendar-year Grand Slam.
@@danbotez1307 I dont agree, if Fed had beaten Djokovic in any of the four GS finals post 2011, which is the period where Djokovic crushed Nadal in almost every final, the debate of GOAT would be over. Federer and Nadal are pretty much even in hardcourts in GS, Nadal winning more on clay and Federer more on grass. Yes the 2008 Wimbledon final was amazing, but kind of even the matchup for Fedal in Wimbledon, Fed winning the previous 2 Wimbledons vs Nadal
@@zy9662 It was Nadal who beat Fed in Fed's prime (2004-2009) on Fed's best surface (grass) at a Slam, NOT Djokovic. Fed was never able to beat Nadal on Nadal's best surface (clay) at a Slam. Then Nadal beat Fed on hardcourt at the 2009 AO, thus 'de facto' ending Fed's prime. During Fed's prime (2004-2009) Fed's record vs. Djokovic' on Djokovic's best surface (hardcourt) at Slams was 4-1. What happened between Fed and Djokovic post 2011 is of secondary importance, since Fed was beyond his prime. For the record, Rafa vs. Djokovic H2H records at Slams are: 11- 7 as far as matches, and 5-4 as far as finals. Your statement that "post 2011, which is the period where Djokovic crushed Nadal in almost every final" is a shameless lie. Their record in finals post 2011 is 10-8 overall in Djokovic's favor, and 4-2 in Slam finals in Rafa's favor. Basic parity, with Rafa having a clear advantage in Slam finals won. Rafa beat Djokovic on Djokovic's best surface (hardcourt) in a Slam final, while Djokovic, just like Federer, was never able to beat Rafa on Rafa's best surface (clay) in a Slam final.
Rafa had more points… he had won 4 masters 1000 and RG that year. Points were doubled after that. Additionally you have to look Rafa’s points not in september, just 1 day prior to Alcaraz age after us open…
Doubling points from 2005 probably overestimates 2005 points relative to current points. Points for slam/masters winners currently are twice what was given in 2005, however, points for other results such as SFs, QFs, etc. were not quite doubled and the other tournaments had significantly less scaling when the ranking point distribution was changed in 2009.
However, rafa in 2005 still would have more points than alcaraz currently has after even a pessimistic scaling.
Alcaraz had better slam results tho and is already the better hardcourt player.
@@jacobschmidt2709 In 2005 Nadal had 79-10 record for the year. If not for Federer's 81-4, he would've been very dominant #1. Alcaraz has 59-9 in 2022. Chances that he will go close to 20-1 for the remainder of the year are not high. Also keep in mind that Alcaraz did not have anybody in 2022 draws resembling prime Federer, with whom Nadal was competing.
Correction: I did not include Davis Cup latest results yet in the database, so Alcaraz already has 60-10. Which makes his task even harder for the rest of the year.
@@jacobschmidt2709 Yes, but Nadal at 19 was a better clay court player than Alcaraz.
@@jacobschmidt2709 Yes he is, the game has evolved to be so physical and the younger players are always learning from the past and implementing new advancements in fitness and training. Plus we must not forget that 2005 was the year that Rafa was diagnosed with Perthe Foot and had to adjust accordingly. Hard courts were the biggest challenge for him to adapt in terms of his foot.
Gill, in 2005 Grand slams used to be worth 1000 points, masters 500 etc. I'm surprised you don't know this 😄. So, Nadal would've had around 3000 points more in Septembar compared to Alcaraz this year.
Exactly
Nadal been around 9120 points rn with the 2009 points in 2005 at this current pt
Gill the ranking points system was changed in 2009 where all tournaments were doubled. September 2005 Federer actually had around 12000 points converted into todays era, Rafa had around 8000 points
2004-2007 federer was a completely different animal. i lived it. the arm and racket speed and the way you see the ball just explode off of alcaraz's forehand now was wat federer's forehand was during 2004-2007, except federer's technique was far superior. think of alcaraz's forehand now, its massive but its very hit or miss. now imagine that same forehand but IT NEVER MISSES. that was federer's forehand during his prime years. 2008 and beyond, federer's forehand lost a lot of racket speed and spin and he changed it to a much flatter shot and was much more error prone. also, what people tend to forget is, during 2004-2007, federer was the second best defensive player in the world, behind nadal. federer was SO quick, and if he could get his racket on the ball, he almost always got it back onto court. federer's spot serving and backhand got better post 2007, but I've never seen anything quite like prime federer. he was a fucking ninja on court.
Facts
His only problem during 2004-2007 was that Rafa owned him: 8-6.
I'm a Rafa fan and I would never diminish Federer. He changed the game and took it to a level that everyone had to match. I have no problem with arguments for any of the three of them. Everyone benefited from this trivalry.
Thanks man
man that dreaming bit was hilarious, also really liked the way you discussed tiers. i think its a perfect way to dividie players when margins are so fine and opinions so subjective
😂😂 it was. Gill's gotta feel good that he is memorable!
I think Nadal's lack of grunting (alongside his reduced serve power) may have been related to his ongoing abdominal tear issue. Grunting or shouting puts extra tension through the abdominal muscles - try it!
Very true
I agree about the GOAT debate. I mean who oficially decides? Your Tiers idea makes perfect sense. And I think we tennis fans each have our own GOAT.
Historically, the one holding the most GS has been considered the GOAT. It was one of the key arguments of Federer fanboys when Nadal was behind yet extending his lead in their H2H.
Yep, the ranking points were doubled sometime after 2005 I think in 2009, initially a GS was 1000 pts but was doubled to 2000, and so forth, so Federer having 6000 pts in 2005 would mean 12000 pts in 2022, still significantly higher than Alcaraz's pts today.
Yup it was 2009
This guy made his own point system and did the entire Open Era with it. It is awesome. You can find it by G oog ling:
100 Greatest: Men's Tennis Players, 1968-2022 beatles1964
No-grunt Nadal means the abdomen injury really hurt. He went totally silent during the Wimbledon quarterfinal and hasn't been able to grunt since. After the injury, he only grunted on key shots where he was trying to inject extra pace.
The best mover ever?Carlitos and the young Rafa were incredible for sure.And also Gael of course.But for the movement of Roger has to be considered because of his anticipation,so much so that we often didn’t even notice!Years ago i filmed Rogers’feet for about 20 minutes,it was a thing of beauty to look at!
I agree, throw in djoko too. Meddy is surely up there. It’s not all about speed
Exactly thank u someone brought up Fed
You cannot exclude Djokovic's speed, anticipation and court coverage. He gets to drop shots so quickly. He also has great defence and balance.
@@deltamarquees8158 Absolutely of course!Totally agree!Has anyone ever shown such Flexibility!Also,more anybody i have ever seen,Novak has a special superpower in that he seems to have several gears that are only used when he absolutely needs to deploy those gears be it the ground strokes on both sides.AND the serve.Amazing!
One of my theory on why Federer changed his forehand - whether intentionally or subconsciously - was back pain/ stress. He had a ton of rotation on his back for his earlier forehands and there was more shoulder/ arm stress probably from raising the racquet so high. His body was also more angled, putting more pressure on the legs. Now this probably doesn't just apply to Federer but to every player ever, since strokes do change gradually.
Hey, Former Semi-pro player here! I believe that he changed his forehand because it lets him stay close to the baseline and make better on the rise and half-volley shots. The legendary down-the-line Aussie Open forehand is an example of that. :)
The points system has changed quite a bit since 2005. A lot more points up for grabs now.
Nice to hear you will do a Laver cup video. I listened back to your Laver cup 2018 video and it was very enjoyable.
Good point about Wimbledon GOAT. There is something really special about it that the other tournaments just don't have. I always remember Federer talking about just enjoying walking around the beautiful lawn courts and wonderful floral displays.
The only issue is that since about 1980 grass has been a minority surface. There is no grass season to speak of. So winning the oldest and most prestigious Slam is nice, but not that relevant as far as overall performance.
Also winning Wimbledon without beingable to win Roland Garros (i.e., totally different surface at the 2nd-most prestigious Slam) makes one a one-dimensional player. The best example is Sampras who won 7 Wimbledons, but his best result at Roland Garros was only one appearance in the semis (1996). That is why Sampras was declared GOAT only by American media who have no appreciation for clay play since American players by and large have have performed poor on clay.
Iam so happy to hear this as fed fan
After every one said rafa is goat I had painfully accepted it but today realised its who wins more Wimbledon Is goat. Iam so happens.
@@danbotez1307 well yes the media pick and choose their info and favourites. To me, Sampras wasn't a player with flair, or someone I enjoyed watching. Yes he won but it seemed to me the dawn of the bullet serving and multiple aces - with little rallying - was a big part of his game, and those point make for dull tennis. Part of 🐐 status IMO is to bring magic. I guess there are some points of magic with Novak, but say a Meddy Vs Novak match I probably wouldn't tune into, whereas Fed v Nadal brought out some spectacular points. Back to the grass point. In some ways the fact that there is so little on grass, makes it all the more special. I just think clay is kind of ugly, perhaps this is why lawn tennis is so elevated.
@@jacintacesp I agree that Sampras' game was terribly boring. I blame him for hurting American men's tennis by pushing ball-bashing (Exhibit A: Roddick). Also, as a person Pete was a real bore.😃
@@danbotez1307 😂
Love your take on the endless GOAT debate, Gill! Thanks.
🐐 debate is toxic, but the tiers are not 🧠
Facts
Now we must use tiers because Federer is out of the picture now, come on now
Well it’s all subjective just like golf who would u pick Jack that has 18 or tiger with 15
Or any other sport
The GOAT debate is just a bit of fun. They are all GOATs. Same for the women, lots of varying opinions about who that was.
Oh man it'd be so great if fed did commentary whilst djokovic and Nadal was around and hear him talk about playing against them.
Funnily enough with all this sniping from fans about “The” GOAT, Nadal himself agrees with your tier system. After he won his 22nd he was interviewed and basically said right now there’s so little between the careers of the Big 3 that it doesn’t really matter about one being greater, the point is they’re their own group
Federer is third in Grand Slams, third in Masters titles, second in weeks at number 1, he has a negative head to head record against both of his biggest rivals. Let's be honest here he has no GOAT case anymore. He is the most beloved player of all time, that's for sure. But in sports, results matter, and you have to give credit where credit is due, and both Đoković and Nadal have passed him.
Prime Federer was way better than anyone. There are some people that consider Ayrton Senna as goat in F1, only winning 3 titles. Goat debate goes beyond numbers.
@@samirzakur Prime Federer's kryptonite was Rafa. Over the 2004-2007 time period Rafa had a winning H2H record vs. Fed : 8-6, of which two wins were on hardcourt. Federer never ever led their H2H record.
And Nole has 5 more years to get 10 more slams, 20 more 1000s, but rf is smooth and Rafa the girls like
@@joereitapple8566 Djoketard crap
Fed’s forehand change is the main reason I say he has the 2nd best forehand ever rather than the best. At its peak it was incredible, but he changed it. I almost wonder if it had to do with soreness or injuries. Kinda similar to Nadal serving huge in 2010 but stopping after because of shoulder issues.
@Ilfat 4 USOs and 2 AOs make Rafa all-time # 4 on hardcourt.
@@danbotez1307 arguably #3 though since he played against #1 and #2... who did sampras play compared to that
Those are some hefty caterpillars above Gil's eyes!
An argument can be made for all 3 being the greatest! I think most would agree that Federer's game was the most beautiful to watch! The fluidity of his movement, his great hands, and his graceful technique! Also, Roger with the supreme forehand, especially in his prime! For Novak, the 38 Master's 1000's, the mental toughness and the ability to play the big points better than the other 2! Nadal's relentless effort and what I regard as the best conditioned tennis player- ever! And, his absolute dominance on clay, other than a few matches! An argument can be for each!
PS- Michael Chang was the most relentless runner I've ever seen on the courts! He would run a ball down if it flew out of the stadium!
I prefer Rafa in all categories but we all get to love who we love in this lifetime! Rafa is the greatest (for now) but check back in 15 years and I strongly suspect it very well might be Carlos! (: (: (:
@@freemangriffin4953 Nah. Statistically Djokovic is the greatest of the three. 1 slam can't compensate for everything else.
@@jacobschmidt2709 Wrong ! Nadal surpasses Djoker as well:
1) The highest % of Slams won out of Slams entered: 33 %............Novak is 30 %
2) The highest % of Slam finals won: 73.3 % ....................................Novak is 65.5 %
3) Rafa is 11- 7 vs. Novak in Slam matches
4) Rafa is 5-4 vs. Novak in Slam finals
@@danbotez1307 And how many times did they both face each other in Roland Garros compared to the Australian Open and Wimbledon? Slam stats are skewed for that reason.
@@jacobschmidt2709 You can figure out those yourself from the ATP site, Djoktard.
I'm personally ecstatic that net play is on the rise in modern tennis with the strength of true all court players like Alcaraz, Kyrgios, Tiafoe, and even Sinner. As the courts get a bit faster hopefully this trend continues.
Yes faster courts plz and thank you
Same
Gill, you touched a couple of questions that IMO are related to each other:
1) the dominance of Federer in 2004-07 and the reason it ended
2) why the forehand of federer started to change at the end of this period.
My take on this is that around the end of 07 - the beginning of 08 Federer lost a small tad of his speed. His speed in 04-06 was otherwordly. He was every bit as fast as Nadal. But starting the 2008 it was not so anymore. He still had elite speed, but just a small fraction slower. And the result of this was that he had to perform his strokes in less ideal positions. Which in turn led to the change in the stroke technique - creating simplified version that could be still dangerous and attacking but not losing a reliability. It was a balancing act and he was not always successful. And it also answers the question about the reeason why his dominance came to an end.
The only problem with the so-called 2004-2007 Fed dominance period is that Rafa owned him even during that time : 8-6.😀
Federer was the best actual tennis player in terms of skill and variety. He could do everything better than anyone. Novak and Rafa were more fit and stronger but were pretty conservative players in comparison.
15-24 vs Nadal and a 2nd-rate performance on clay.
Fed was the least mentally tough of the top 3. Both Rafa and Novak beat him in tight situations..
Yep. Federer was without question the best pure tennis player of the three.
@@jacobschmidt2709 Tennis includes clay play. Fed was definitely well below Nadal, and also below Djokovic on clay.
Also, how come a so-called "best pure tennis player" have a losing record on both clay and outdoor hardcourt (the two major playing surfaces) vs. one of his contemporaries 😆
That’s a myth. His BH, his return were not better than Novak’s. You may say that his game was flashier, but not necessarily he had more skills or do everything better.
I would describe Đoković, Medvedev and Zverev as neutralizers. Agree with Gill about Nadal, he is a power player now, but still patient and consistent.
Not sure if this was the episode or another one where someone asked if Gill has a problem with Ruud. He (surprisingly) doesn't have a problem with him, but I'll share what I saw at the US Open: Gill was patiently waiting to sample some of the great food available at the Open. Just as the server brought Gill's order, Ruud suddenly showed up and grabbed Gill's order. The server asked Oh is this order for you? Ruud yelled JAAA! and walked out with Gill's order 😃
I'd put that debate in terms of the level each one of those players reached at any point in their carriers. My pick is Novak Djokovic, because he'd play for months on a level nobody could even get close to beating him. Nadal said after one of those matches, that he had never seen a player reach that level. Federer would have never admitted that, but you could see it in his behaviour after the series of losses
I’d say going first was an advantage as he got the chance to get way ahead. Yet despite that Nadal and Djokovic still caught him.
Nadal/Djokovic got the advantage back in there mid 30s
How is setting the bar first that high fall as an advantage?
It's always easier to chase than be chased. Thats just one of the facts of life and especially sports.
I think it was advantageous in some ways because it allowed him to have an Era on to himself before he could share the stage. If any other of big 3 had those years of being the lone top dog in most tournaments, I would presume they would have similar runs. It also meant that he had last time in his prime after the other two had ascended, so it had its downsides. There are pros and cons to it and I don't believe it should be anything to lament over.
As a diehard Fed fan, it's sorta hard for me to make a strong argument for him being GOAT, although he will forever be my personal GOAT. However, I think we could look at a couple of things. First, I think we can look at the age difference between him and Rafa and Nole. Although Roger played in the same era as the other two members of the big three, they are not the same generation. Roger's generation of players consisted of guys like Safin, Ferrero, Hewitt, and Roddick, who are all hall of famers. Roger is 41, while Rafa and Nole are 36 and 35, respectively. Roger has played 1,526 matches, while Rafa and Nole have played 1,280 and 1,216, respectively. Those 200+ extra matches make a difference. Second, Roger had a dominating stretch like no other. From 2004-2007, he was a winning machine. Outside of losing to Rafa on clay, he just wasn't losing that many matches. Rafa and Nole never put together a stretch like that. I think I read something the other day where it said that Roger won 23 or 24 level finals in a row at one point. Lastly, I think you have to look at his 237 consecutive weeks at #1. That's over 4.5 straight years being ranked #1. Not sure we are likely to see that happen again anytime soon.
From 2004-2007 Fed was not quite a winning machine. Rafa had 8-6 winning record over Fed during that period, and it was not all on clay. Rafa's first win over Fed was actually on hardcourt at the 2004 Miami. Fed tied the H2H record, for the first and only time in their rivalry, at the 2005 Miami. After that Rafa has held a winning H2H record vs Fed throughout the 2004-2007, and to date (i.e., 24-15).
@@danbotez1307 He was a winning machine. Look at how many titles he racked up during that period of time. From 2004-2007, Rafa had 2 non-clay wins over Roger. Yes, Rafa had an 8-6 head-to-head against Roger by the end of 2007, but half (7) of those matches were on clay. I’m not sure how Rafa having a winning record against Fed during that period even detracts from the fact that Federer was a winning machine during that period of time.
Facts haters will do anything
@@POK2008 He was a winning machine OFF clay. The two major surfaces the game is played on are outdoor hardcourt and clay (each having seasons of its own). Fed's being 2nd-3rd string on clay did not make him a winning machine at any time his career. It's true that Rafa has been the king on clay, but he also holds a 8-6 record vs Fed on outdoor hardcourt.
@@danbotez1307 2nd-3rd string on clay? That’s hilarious! He was clearly the 2nd best clay court player in the world for years. Let’s not act like the guy didn’t make 5 French finals. If not for playing against the greatest clay courter to ever live, he would have multiple French Opens. Like I said, the guy was a winning machine from 2004-2007. He won over 40 tournaments during that stretch.
Great show as always, Gil ! I agree that in general one can't and shouldn't pick a GOAT. However, relative comparisons can be made.
There are some facts which prove IMHO that Rafa will end up superior to Fed:
First the obvious ones:
1) 22-20 at Slams won; Rafa over 19 years of professional play vs. Fed over 22 years of professional play
2) 24-15 H2H record including 8-6 on outdoor hardcourt
Then, other facts:
1) Rafa won 34 % of Slams entered, Fed won only 24.7 % of Slams entered.
2) Rafa won 73.3 % of Slam finals. Fed won only 64.5 % of Slam finals
3) Rafa is 10-4 vs. Fed in Slam matches.
4) Rafa is 6-3 vs. Fed in Slam finals
IMHO Rafa ended Fed's prime with two blows: 1) Beating Fed at the '08 Wimbledon (i.e., on Fed's favorite surface) and 2) Beating Fed in the '09 AO final. It looked to me to that Fed's crying at the '09 AO awards ceremony was proof that he realized that his prime was over.
4 finals on clay though…
Federer completed the career slam and went past Sampras in the two slams following 09 AO, so no. I've heard the theory that the Djokovic loss at 08 AO ended his real prime, this was followed by being thrashed at the French and finally losing at Wimbledon.
@@alexobed4252 ..but won only 5 of 39 clay Masters entered.......and only a third were losses to Rafa. Fed in reality is not part of the all-time top-10 performers on clay.
@@joshforde698 Career Grand Slam is a media invention. The only Grand Slam is the calendar-year one.....and Safin in 2005 and Rafa on other years denied that to Fed.
The only open-Era, calendar-year Grand Slam was achieved by Rod Laver in 1969.
So no, Fed was never GOAT, just like Sampras, on account of his abysmal clay record, and Rafa ended his prime when he beat him on his best surface at Wimbledon 2008.
@@danbotez1307 But you have to take into account that Rafa, the clay goat, was always in the way and usually the only one that would stop Fed. Roger is much better on clay than the stats say. Moreover, Federer excelled much better on clay than Nadal did on indoor courts(Nadals 0 WTF's is the blackmark in the Spaniards career).
I don't think people are going to be overly concerned about who was the goat in the decades to come. This will be the goat era and all three will be celebrated. What I do suspect though is that then like now, Roger will be the one people want to watch.
Yep. Surely the best eye candy out of the three.
It’s either Nadal or Djokovic. So Federer is definitely number 3.
I agree. For me it's Nadal #1, Djokovic #2, and Federer #3.
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
@@jacobschmidt2709 Nadal has 2 more slams than Federer. Has made Federer cry. Both Nadal and Djokovic own Fed in slams.
@@johnnelson3665 1 more slam.
@@jacobschmidt2709 Idiot
How can you talk about the fastest movers without mentioning Djokovic. The young Djokovic was amazingly fast and had a real swashbuckling dynamic style which was so attractive and compelling to watch. How quickly you forget- fickle as can be. But then you are young , Gill...
I didn't forget. I just don't think he was ever quite as fast as Alcaraz is now.
@@GillGross easy to say 19 yr old Alcaraz is fast because nadal and djoker are almost at retirement. Every current player modeled their movement, fitness and defense from those two Original Gangsters. Alcaraz has an easier draw these days. Just saying.
Easy draw Imao just because Carlos didn’t face a top 10 player til final don’t mean it was a easy draw that’ was a pretty tough draw Cilic rd 4
Sinner qtr that has had good success against him and many people believe he win against Carlos
Semis Tiafoe the guy that took out Rafa and Rublev
Final Casper
That draw overall outside of big 3
Was the toughest draw in long time
Ya people will say anything to discount him if he wins a lot this will be Fed 2.0 with the weak era baloney u can only play who u can play
@@colethomas903 John McEnroe is saying he's almost as fast as Borg!
Exactly mac is crazy lol
Love the advice from your coach. My left hand was mostly along for the ride. When i switched to the Pure Drive, i was finally able to get some power behind my one hander as well.
Love your content Gil. Just a short comment on your comparison on Alcaraz vs Nadal at 19. I think points allocation was different 2005 vs 2022. Rafa won rome, montecarlo roland garros barcelona, made final in miami in 2005 and he had 4600 points by september? If we add just those tourrnament points in 2022 he d be at 5100 solely from that.
He’s ahead of Carlos for sure but he still wouldn’t of been #1
Nadal had the better year so far, but Carlos had better grand slam results. Nadal was the better claycourt player and Carlos was the better hardcourt player.
Exactly
1000% agree with the tier method for GOAT discussion… for me, the big three are a class above the all time greats like Sampras, Laver, and Borg… maybe two classes above players like Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, and Connors.
But if I had to… In the deep, deep, deep details, I find the GOAT argument easiest to make for Djokovic. That is my method: for which player is the argument easiest to argue for.
Federer has a big problem making the argument due to the level of talent he won the majority of majors against and trouble in the big three head to head.
Nadal has a problem in never winning the year end tournament and being so heavily leaning toward clay as his dominant surface. (Not my opinion), but many discount clay as a surface compared to hard and grass. He also was basically shutdown in head to head against Djokovic on hard courts for a decade. Tough to argue GOAT there.
Djokovic’s weakest vulnerability is that he gets twice as many majors a year on his best surface (hard court) to collect major titles. But all the other stats are there to make an easy argument for him… level of competition, head to head, etc.
Regardless, the big three are the GOATs. Of this, there’s no debate.
BTW: I’m a Rafa fan.
Excellent analysis, though I want to mention that you said Djokovic getting twice as many slams on hard as a slight of some sort, there are twice as many hard Court slams available per year than what there is off hard. So his ratio is pretty spot on.
"He also was basically shutdown in head to head against Djokovic on hard courts for a decade". The reverse is true on clay.
Why is clay considered a less important surface? I've never understood that point of view.
Except wimbledon, for me RG is my favourite slam becauce clay more difficult than hardcourt.
Yep. Statistically speaking, Djokovic is without question the goat.
31:20 Is Alcaraz lucky to be No.1? Not at all, we all forget that Alcaraz real rise in the rankings only started in February in Rio. That's why he has only 6700 points and this makes his fast rise even more impressive. It means Alcaraz has very few points to defend until next February, watch him surpass the 10'000 mark until next year in the upcoming tournaments.
Alcaraz is great no doubt, but everybody knows that he would not be number 1 if not for this wacky year(Djokovic missing tournaments because of covid and politics and Wimby not awarding points). Number 3 is still pretty darn good.
If Laver came back and won a GS, he would be the goat for ever! 3 generations of GS success makes Roger the goat.
Nope. Fed's # 3 all-time as far as overall performance
Federer's argument for being the best ever: the length of his run of dominance in his prime, how well rounded his Grand Slams are with 5+ at three (only one for Nadal) and two 5 in a row streaks, his style of play.
Though, I agree on the tier system rather than obsessing over the one.
Rafa>>federer
@@rishbahpandey8697 Novak>>Federer>>Nadal
@@vukasinmaric83 nadal>>>>>>>FEDERER>>>>>>>>>deportovic
He only has one French open tho. Nadal and dopovic have 2 each
@@Fraudkovic And he did not beat Nadal at French Open...
Tennis is losing popularity- Pickle Ball is taking over- even Tennis Channel is devoting increasing time to pickle ball games and televising its tournaments. And you can understand why, with all the bloody-minded bureaucrats running tennis and the asinine decisions that have been made this year, whether it be the persecution and unfair treatment of Novak Djokovic, the banning of Russian and Belarus players, or not giving ranking points at Wimbledon, tennis is a mess. They need to weed out the idiots running it or it will cease to be a significant International sport .
Djokovic's net game has improved so much and his ability and willingness to serve and volley now has been something people has forgotten about, as the 2021 Aussie open final was forgotten very quickly it seems. He built the blueprint to beat meddy and many followed. Then Nadal's slice to his forehand in 2022 was also shown. Meddy has holes he needs to close.
He was always strong at the net just mediocre at high balls
Yep. Med is a very good player, but pales in comparison to Roger and Novak on cement.
It was more Paris masters then AO
Fed is the most popular. Had he been the one with 22, you bet most tennis fans would still base the GOAT debate on the titles.
Iam a fed fan and my request to all the people around the world from today is let's kill the goat debate. No goat. That's it.
Perfect answer 👏
@@chocosquirrel3319 sure, just because your fav. lost the race u want to end it. Pretty convenient
@@igorlucena11 shut up 😡
Rafa is more popular worldwide.
You comment about the GOAT debate is simply idiotic.
GOAT debate is pointless, I hate it, and I'm so freaking sick of it. And this debate is pointless from the root, because they did not have an equal start. When the margins are so small and one starts in an already privileged position to succeed, things like that matter or other things like you said, everything being impacted by the COVID - lock-down impacting players’ momentum, cancellation of multiple events (Wimbledon, whole Asian swing, favourites events of certain one of them…), vaccination requirements, ‘luck’ in testing, and stuff.
35:40 and yes, you're wrong here, Gill. The ranking points were not the same as they are now.
They are pointless but it will now always be debatable
agreed
Like you said Gill, being the first is always hardest. Setting the bar is harder than raising the bar. Federer took the slam race to a whole new level by getting to 20 as opposed to Sampras' 14. If we disregard Rafa and Nole for a sec: maybe if Federer got to 15 or 16, people would still argue that Sampras is the GOAT. Similarly, I think Djokovic or Nadal need to surpass Federer by much more than a few slams for them to be regarded as the undisputed GOAT. Imo this argument is consistently glossed over in the GOAT debate, although it is an objective metric. Sampras set the bar, and Federer set a totally new bar by beating his slam tally by 42 % (20/14=1.42). Whereas Rafa as of now only surpassed Federer by 10%. Not saying this argument makes Federer the undisputed GOAT, just that it's a flawed metric to only be looking at total amount of slams. Simply put: usually relative (%) metrics are more pertinent than absolute metrics, and that should count for something in the GOAT debate
Btw great content as always Gill! The RUclips tennis channel GOAT
Sometimes they are using the left hand to keep the racket more steady.
But one hander also has advantages.
Federer, as the THIRD best player of his generation, has no claim to GOAT status
Thank you
As a fed fan I request everyone to forget this goat debate forever. No should talk abt goat and all that.
Federer still has 100+ weeks at number 1, 6 WTF's to Nadals 0, was a more all-around player(Nadal sucked on indoor courts and was inconsistent on grass), has more titles and was undeniably the better pure tennis player. Moreover, Federer was the best player of the 2000s and Djokovic the best player of the 2010s. Nadal never had an era of dominance as the undisputed best p layer. It's not as clear-cut as it seems.
@@jacobschmidt2709 “was undeniably the better pure tennis player” - according to ME, internet Federer tard
@@jacobschmidt2709 but they all say
Nadal has 22 slams
Double career golden slam
H2h vs roger novak in gs
It's not who dominated more or having their era its anout overall career.
Who cares if u have a fluent or bad game wen u dont win.
Inconsistent on grass player has 2 Wimbledon consistant player on all surfaces has how many fo?
Gs are wat matters not ur 250 titles or wta 3 setters
I'm surprised you don't notice the massive difference in speed of court changes at 45:45. Perhaps they're not the court speed per say, but potentially due to heavier balls, but regardless the game on average is so much slower in the 2010s compared to 2000s. Even late 2007-2010 looked like it was slowing down quite a bit. We didn't get rallies in Wimbledon until like 2002, although that's also due to superior string technology leading to far more top spin consistency.
Yup I say from 2008-2016 all the courts beside Shanghai and Cincy were so slow down which benefit the other 2 way more then it ever benefit Fed
Love your take on GOAT-
Other factors:
Surface has been slowed over time favoring base-liners
Master’s tournaments finals used to be best of 5 (so more tennis played for earlier eras)
Disproportionate tournaments on certain surfaces vs others (eg, clay) favoring specialists of one surface
Exactly 100% facts
Well then you should also consider that there's definitely way more competition on some surfaces...hard courts are everywhere...here in North America, that's all most ppl play on
Also Federer had Sampras in his way for the first part of his career, so only had a short window before Rafa and Novak became big threats. That said, Rafa was able to win against a GOAT from a young age...
Brady has been very eloquent about GOAT talk…and i Agree,it is insulting to the true greats of any sport.Ok the numbers are not to ignored,fair enough,however as much as I revere Rafa and Novak,and the other great legends,Federer is the greatest player I have ever seen.Your Fed piece the other day articulated so well what RF means to the game.He attempted shots no one ever has,because he saw something he felt was possible that no one else would.Time and time again,for years and years Roger did this, and he made it look easy!So,with the greatest respect to Rafa,Novak,Borg,McEnroe,Laver,Sampras,Andre, and a few more,these magicians,Roger will revered in a way that is a “tier” of his own for decades to come.
Who is Brady to talk about tennis ? Rafa having dominated Fed on both clay and outdoor hardcourt is at least equal, if not superior, to Fed.
It was just analogy lol
@@danbotez1307 Davydenko won all his Hardcourt Matches vs Nadal.
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 Irrelevant stat. Davydenko never won a hardcourt Slam, while Rafa won 6 hardcourt Slams.
Dominance is a tricky concept because it's dependent on the level of competition during the time period in question. Rod Laver was pretty dominant during his time but he is not normally in the conversation for GOAT.
Among many serious followers, he's certainly a top tier goat
Literally Nadals and particularly Federers fans constantly berated and *used stats* against Djokovic all the freaking time and...now suddenly that Novak is breaking and making new stats, same people that were *using stats against Djokovic* turned into pure hatred and started saying how stats and records are not the most important because you need to be loved or play a beautiful tennis.
Back in the days Federer fans stated on daily basis his records as the supreme argument on the GOAT topic.
🗣🗣🗣17🏆+ 286🥇= 🇨🇭🐐
Sorry but *facts are what really matter* not personal and biaised point of view. *The most successful and dominant player in a sport is the most legitimate to be called GOAT* , it's as logic as that, no need today to create a new narrative just because an idol lost his records 🙄
The GOAT need to hold the biggest achievements in his sport 🏆🥇, a objective way to judge this debate
*This is Sport🎾* (the performance is what matters the most) not a fashion week or a Miss Universe ceremony or iceskating
"Grand Slam tennis is not a popularity context, being that guy everyone loved doesn't get you the W and that's it all about. that comes from supreme talent multiplied by hard work time. They might think you're cold, cliical, boring and a brat, IT DOESN'T MEAN A THING" *John McEnroe*
The greatest of all time does not mean only winning a lot, but also being a good sport. That the category at which Djoker is way behind Fed and Nadal.
Just like Serena will never be considered GOAT given her lack of class and sportsmanship.
@@danbotez1307 This question of sportsmanship and charisma is so subjective
For some people is Federer or Nadal, for others is Djokovic
It's such a subjective criteria
It's certainly not because you judge specifically a player as an ideal model of sportsmanship that means all of us share the same feelings and thoughts.
Learn to be more open minded and accept different opinions.
Djokovic always the first one to clap for a good point by his opponent. Always the first one to say good things about opponent in victory or defeat in a press conference. He doesn't laugh at weaker opponents or ask opponents box to shut up when losing. Surely more humble than others, which of-corce you wont want to acknowledge.
Djokovic has earned everything in his career, has a loyal wife who has been following him since he was a teenager, 2 beautiful children, an enviable situation, and that doesn’t stop him from leaving his ivory tower to support the low ranked players in order to live of their passion, to vote for a boycott in China if necessary in order to clarify the situation of Peng Shuai or to condemn the discriminatory ban against Russians and Belarusians players at Wimbledon (Federer hasn't said a single word about it as president of the ATP Player Council...)
*The Serb is a man of duty and this is pure class*
Not because Occidental medias and their obnoxious crowd in stadiums want to portray Novak as a villain that he can't be perceived as a real hero and leader for many others persons in others part of the world (Asia, Africa, East countries).
A lot of respect for Novak who stands for others, don't stay inside his confort zone because too scared to lose privileges and get criticisms.
@@mickaellandry9726 I was not talking charisma. I was taking about class. Djoker confirmed his lack of class earlier this year when he cheated and lied prior to the AO,
@@danbotez1307 that's a lie
Djokovic didn't break any rules any laws in Australia.
Their government concluded that Novak Djokovic holds anti-vaccination views and could be a threat to Australia's public health. 🤦♂️
It was confirmed that Novak didn't break any rules & there were no determined issue with his paperwork or exemption, which was valid. Former minister of Immigration Hawke stated this clearly in the court docs. He was deported for the govt not liking his public opinions, that's it.
Nothing to do with cheating, no need to manipulate the reality in order to portray again the man as a villain.
Please stop the cap just because you have personally a lot bitterness towards Novak 🤦♂️
@@danbotez1307 get your facts right
He’s the 3rd greatest ever. Case closed!
And it’s not bad considering they were so close. It’s just, yeah he’s clearly a little below the other 2
@@UTUBE3JC Yeah he’s had an amazing career and been a special player for over 20 years. He’s just slightly behind the other 2 in the end.
@@marklundie7637 plus, in terms of goat, he’s been the goat longer LoL. Cuz everyone even nole and Nadal assumed they would never catch up so they just agreed Federer was the goat until Nadal and nole both for sure just crushed all his records and he was THEN not the universal goat but, it’s a solid 10 years of being goat
@@UTUBE3JC Whoever wins the final GOAT battle between Nadal and Djokovic will be the GOAT for a very long time. Especially considering no one else is currently anywhere near them. As a Djokovic fan I hope it’s him who ends up on top. We will see.
Well thank u captain obvious the tour has suck for awhile with just the big 3 battling where is the competition to beat them
Let’s learn to be obnoxious with the most obnoxious fan base: the Fedtards. First, it was all about the records: when Fed held all of them, he was hailed as the GOAT by all the fan base and most of the media. Now that his records have been surpassed, they resort to: 1) it’s about the gamestyle: Federer plays the most beautiful tennis; therefor, he is the GOAT 2) talent: Federer is more “talented” than Nadal and Djokovic (which is a fallacy in itself); so he must be the GOAT 3)there is no GOAT! You can’t determine a GOAT in tennis, whether because it would be too subjective or just because they are too close to each other in achievements.
Tsc, tsc… like I said, the double standard is real. Not so long ago, that same tard base, was proclaiming to the wind that the old men was the greatest ever to ever set foot in a tennis court. One word: disgusting!
Well put ! The Fedtards are a cult. No matter what facts one presents to them with they will always stick by Fed being the possessor of the purest tennis game, the most talented of the big 3 and so on.
Nevermind that he was the least successful of the top 3 on clay, the one whose Slams were won over a much longer time period than either Rafa or Novak, the only one of the top 3 who wasn't capable of winning 3 consecutive Slams on 3 different surfaces in the same calendar year.
While putting on a classy front, he was smug, not always gracious in defeat especially when Rafa started beating him in his prime (2005-2007), not below swearing at his opponents, or crying like a wimp at a Slam awards ceremony.
His celebrating his 15th Slam with donning a jacket decorated with a "15" logo was by no means a class act.
Rafa and Djorovic are great champions. Federer's movement was tremendous. He almost seemed to be floating round the court. I loved the way he played.
While putting on a classy front, Federer was smug, not always gracious in defeat especially when Rafa started beating him in his prime (2005-2007), not below swearing at his opponents, or crying like a wimp at a Slam awards ceremony.
His celebrating his 15th Slam with donning a jacket decorated with a "15" logo was by no means a class act.
I think that there are even tiers amongst what we consider all-time greats. For example, you wouldn't put Lendl or Edberg, who are certainly all-time greats, in the same tier as Federer, Rafa, and Novak. I consider Federer, Rafa, and Novak as tier 1, or what I like to call God tier. You can maybe even put Sampras and Laver in tier 1 as well. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that I, like you, Gill, group players into tiers as well.
I think big 3 have to be in a tier of their own because they are so far ahead of the rest in grand slam titles. And did it against each other. Like, Nadal is at 22 and Sampras is at 14. That’s such a massive difference.
@@SJ-di5zu I pretty much agree with this. That's why I said "maybe" with Sampras and Laver. I think it's pretty much the big 3 and then everyone else. That's why I consider them God tier. They are pretty much the Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades of tennis.
00:26:30 “Was Casper being Rude?” OMG I love that pun there. 😂😂😂
I genuinely dont think he realized he made a pun lol
Regarding Nick, I don't think scar tissue is an issue because he went on to win in the tournament immediately following wimby, and also had a decent run at the US open all the whilst defeating Medvedev twice in that period
Federer’s legacy can definitely be measured now that it’s over, but can’t really be compared to Nadal and Djokovic yet because they’re probably gonna win more slams. I think Federer’s period of dominance at his peak along with his overall number of titles (which I don’t think Nadal or Djokovic will catch) are his two biggest advantages.
I still think 2005 Nadal was better than current Alcaraz. Does anyone think Alcaraz would be able to challenge and defeat Federer at his absolute peak multiple times? Once at a slam as well? I don’t believe so.
Federer's period of dominance was in a ridiculously weak error + most of his titles are 250s
Most of his 103 titles are 250 Imao 😂😂😂
@@pana71 Weak era isn’t a fair criticism tbh. Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have all won against weak fields in certain points of their careers, and Federer still had to deal with young Nadal who was dominating clay courts. Plus he spent his mid-late 20s and early 30s in the strongest era ever.
I do kinda agree with the 250s criticism though. Anyone who’s making a real, nuanced GOAT debate is gonna look at the bigger titles. I think his dominance is his best argument, but I’m beginning to think Federer is probably finishing third.
@@SJ-di5zu No ofense, but this 250 titles is absurd. Federer has more 250, because basel, halle and dubai were not always considerer 500, but anyone knew they were stronger tournaments than regular 250, because it brought more top 10 players. Now, Fed has played 1 250 tournaments per year on average. Same goes for Nadal and Djokovic. Tehnically, Nadal and Djokovic had the same chances at winning more 250, yet they failed. You win what's in front of you, every title is important, otherwise, there is no point in playing the tournament.
Exactly
(SPOILERS?) I actually cheered out loud when you made Carlitos your 7th pick, as if it had any consequence at all but yeah I agree. I wonder if the apparent favoritism would result in any friction between Alcaraz and the rest of the new gen pool.
Thanks again for your brilliant review and our superb insight and knowledge
Fed teaming up with Rafa for his last match is perfectly suitable. A lowlife like Novax will never reach the greatness of Fed and/or Rafa.
I wish Federer continues to play competitively in doubles although considering he's got a business empire to run can't imagine him doing anything but occasional exhibition matches for fans and for charities etc.
As for peak Federer, I saw him through that and to be honest it only struck me as not himself changing as much, but rather Nadal as rising up. Federer was clearly steps ahead of others in his ability to play against any opponent once he began to really dominate with his serve, forehand and transition game. He also was certainly the best mover at the time. But then Nadal came along and he began to chip into Federer with his style of play. Other opponents of Federer's didn't seem to have the patience of game and big match mental strength to win semis and finals very often.
Federer held back Nadal and Djokovic long enough but they were just developing. Federer outplayed Djokovic at Australia 2007 and could have easily gone to five sets at the US open, great year for Federer, kinda, but only one year later Djokovic was much tougher in the matchup in Australia and won the whole thing. Then Federer has an average year, fully obliterated in the french and just snagged at his most dominant tournament, Wimbledon. Djokovic still finding himself and loses to roddick at the US and Federer gets there once again, but for the last time in his life, unbelievably. Never would have imagined he could never win that title again after being so dominant in the US for five straight years (although 2007 final was too close to say dominant).
Then it's 2009, it's pretty even overall, Federer could have/should have easily gone down two sets to none against Roddick on grass (unthinkable only two or three years ago given how much smarter at tennis Federer was than Roddick). Federer still just taking the odd couple slams and by slim margins some of them. Federer shouldn't have lost in the US but ego got in the way and he challenged del Potro forehand too often and paid for it.
Then it's 2010 and it's the beginning of the end, frankly. Nadal way too good in big matches, Federer seems to never come to the net anymore and play dynamically, just losing from the baseline. As a Federer fan, this was depressing period of time to watch.
I think Nadal and Djokovic were their own forces and Djokovic took longer to mature competitively than the warrior Nadal but Nadal always had some extremely difficult plays that Federer struggled with.
Otherwise, Federer beat just about everyone else still for a long time, up until maybe 2013 or so. Still, he was right up there until the end and if he weren't injured, he'd still contend for majors on skill alone. I think even if Djokovic and Nadal during their best years played Federer in his best years, Federer would lose them more often than win them. Their games were nicely counter-able to Federer's with their baseline dominance and athletic ability to handle transition games and slice balls (Nadal especially). Players from 90's and 2000's couldn't do that as much because they didn't need to, they all played a slice when they were on the run to their backhand. Nowadays it's more common to see open stance sliding backhand from around the knees than a slice. Federer is still the greatest or most influential player in the way of the last few generations that his next level of play to pick apart his compatriots at the time, spawned this newer style of all around athletic consistency paired with aggressive weapons and unbreakable mental toughness. Of which two chief rivals came out to topple him. It's been amazing to watch but as a fan of Roger's it's still been hard to watch knowing that he could win on any given day (except clay) but just had to really redline his game to get through them.
Alcaraz looks like he's gonna cause another huge stylistic evolution too.
In short, for all his achievements Fed ends up #3 all-time as far as overall performance. Even during Fed's 'golden' years (2004-2007) Nadal always maintained an winning record over Fed : 8-6 (Fed tied the record once in 2005, but never led their H2H record). So as Fed retires Nadal > Fed.
@@danbotez1307 well from 2004-2007 how many of nadals wins were on clay? 6/8. not to discredit them but no ones ever had a positive h2h against nadal on clay over a span of years
It will be hard for Nadal and Djokovic to regain the No 1 ranking again given their limited schedules.
Agree if Rafa don’t end this year #1 I don’t think he will and Djokovic will prioritize Slams
Djokovic will be no. 1 next year so many points to gain
We will see Carlos while he has a lot to defend next year he has barely any points in AO,MC,Rome,RG,Wimbledon,Canada,Cincy he only has 650 points in these 7 tournaments if Carlos holds #1 to end of this year and does semis/fina/ win at AO next year he keep it for awhile tbh
Honestly Federer is the 3rd GOAT people must stop these ridiculous things, because when Federer had the numbers they said he is GOAT even when Nadal had a H2H record over him
Head to head also depends on surface for most of his career Rafa never face Fed peak that much on hard court
@@colethomas903 wrong . They faced on hard court 24 times . And many of feds wins over rafa on hard court came when he was out of his prime (6 straught wins on hc by 34 and older fed)so that argument doesn't work .
I’m not wrong your missing my point in Fed peak how many matches did they play on a HC and compare that to how many times Roger played Rafa peak on clay
See u brought up age 34+ for Fed I never did
On HC in Fed peak he was 4-3 vs Nadal where was Nadal in all these HC tournaments in Fed domination losing while Fed was so good on clay he keep reaching the semis or final if Fed had lost early he preserved tons of lost and the head to head would be so much closer then u wouldn’t be using it if it was 18-17
Your goat answer is too diplomatic 😅
Federer is out of the picture it's only between Nole and Rafa
Your logic presumes that tennis started 20 years ago. For most of tennis history, grand slams was NOT a measurement of who was the greatest because only amateurs could play in slams. So, the great players would win a few majors and then turn pro and no longer be eligible for slams (unless they were wealthy). In fact, in the amateur days, the best players weren’t playing the slams.
So having said that, it is impossible to compare players today with players of the past….and in the best case, any claims of GOAT are highlyvsubjective at best.
@@dorothygale1104 So if Nadal isn't the GOAT of Clay, who is?
Federer still has 100+ weeks at number 1, 6 WTF's to Nadals 0, was a more all-around player(Nadal sucked on indoor courts and was inconsistent on grass), has more titles and was undeniably the better pure tennis player. Moreover, Federer was the best player of the 2000s and Djokovic the best player of the 2010s. Nadal never had an era of dominance as the undisputed best player. Moreover, everybody knows that Nadal should be at 21 slams if not for that Djokovic deportation. It's not as clear-cut as it seems.
@@jacobschmidt2709 yeah having second thought you're correct, Federer and Nole are complete all surface players, unlike Nadal who didn't win atp finals and have way less weeks at number one
I think an issue with one handed backhands seems to be receiving heavy topspin. That's a big reason nadal has been able to prey on one-handers throughout his career. I wouldn't be surprised if most players stick with two-handers due to the extra stability and control. The best-backhanders in the world imo are Novak, Daniil, and Sascha. They may not have destructive power, but the flat ball with depth gives opponents alot of trouble.
The points system was different in 2005 grand slams were only 1000 points and masters were half a so on. Nasal would have had 9000 plus points with todays system. This also makes senses considering that 2005 federer was possibly federer most dominant year with 88 wins and 4 loses, but with the old system he still has less than 7000 points.
Yup was a joke
They forget Fed still been #1 with this ranking format they think Nadal would over took him lol
Fed was ridiculous in 04,05,06,07
He can still be a ballman, at the US Open
The big 3 is the greatest mens players, people go by slams, but they have records that are outstanding some more then others in certain areas and some has less in certain areas, it goes down to you can't talk about one without talking about the other 2, all three are great. All 3 are goats🐐 🐐 🐐.
Exactly
Totally agree
37:00 the answer to Francois is in a channel named GOATKOVIC. there he explains everything in detail if Roger declined after his prime
Thanks Gill!
And as for "women's GOAT a little easier" I agree. Navratilova - total titles: 356 - Singles Titles 167. Serena - total titles 97 - Singles titles 72. So - Martina has Serena's "97" titles - once, twice, three times over and then another 65 titles "over." 1st Major 17 yrs - last Major month shy of 50 years; Serena 1st Major 17 yrs, Last Major 35 yrs - would need to win a Major in 2032 to tie that - not even close man! Serena's total singles titles at 72 - Martina won Singles and Doubles in the same tournament 84 times, read that again 84 times....there is NO contest for GOAT here.
Martina is the greatest female tennis player of all time - period! (:
Margaret Court Smith has even better stats than Martina.
Martina has the record for the longest winning streak too I think? What about Steffi Graf - 22 slams I think in 10 years?
There is a contest as far as Margaret Smith Court: 192 tour titles compared to Martina's 167 tour titles.
"was Casper being rude in your dream"? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
...is there any world (through your tennis tv connections) where you could interview Andy Roddick specifically about the Federer game change?
Tenis greatest records between the big 3:
Most slams: Nadal
Most masters: Djokovic
Most titles: Federer
Most tour finals: Federer
Most time spent in top 10: Federer
Most consecutive weeks in top 10: Nadal
Most wins against top 10: Djokovic
Most weeks at no.1: Djokovic
Most year end no.1: Djokovic
Most consecutive weeks: Federer
Most wins: Federer
Most hard titles: Federer
Most grass titles: Federer
Most clay titles: Nadal
Those record are based on their whole career, another great record that I didn't mention is win rate(as Djokovic and Nadal careers are not over yet). As you can see Federer holds 7 records, Djokovic has 4 and Nadal has 3. This can change in the future. That doesn;t mean that Federer is the GOAT or the other 2 are, because I personally don't believe in this, as former legends, statisticians, commentators have a hard time deciding that, so there is no point in arguing. I just hate the fact that people mention that Federer had no more records, every since Djokovic broke his majors one. As you can see he still holds and will hold pretty impresive records.
You missed out Head to Head records and Win/Loss Records, Federer comfortably NO 3 in both regards!!
Lol 🤣 you just figured a way to favour Federer
25% of Federer's titles are 250s.
Nadal records you missed
1) Most consecutive weeks in the top ten
2) Most weeks in the top two.
3) Most seasons with at least one title.
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 Djokovic and Nadal had the same chances at winning the same number of 250. Every big 3 plays like 1 250/year.
I Googled ex-GOAT, and ended up here.
Sampras was the most dominant in his peak and good form in non clay tournaments if games are watched.
A sport with 3 GOAT’s. Good luck with the arguments 😂
Fr but it’s all subjective
@@colethomas903 totally. That’s the fun part.
yes and no depending on who u talk to it can be fun
In their primes, Federer has the edge.
If all 3 goats are in their prime, federer is a distant third.
Rafa has a 8-6 wining record vs Fed during 2004-2007, and 'de facto' ended Fed's prime with terrific wins at the '08 Wimbledon and the '09 AO.
There's no player Whose peaked higher than Djokovic
@@danbotez1307 Nadal won only three Slams from 2004-07 While Federer won 12.
@@jeffreykaufmann2867 So what ! During that time frame Rafa, although 5 years younger than Fed, had an 8-6 H2H winning record vs. him. Rafa also denied Fed winning a calendar-year Slam in 2006 and 2007. By now Rafa has won 22 Slams over 19 years of professional play compared to Fed's 20 Slams over 21 years of professional play.
Fed ends career by missing another match point. A fitting end, given that throughout his career his major weakness was mental toughness.
That dream is hilarious. Per Freud, dreams are either 1) wish fulfillment or 2) resolution of an issue. Which one is this?
The question about Federer's forehand is fascinating, and deffo interested to hear what people 'in-the-know' think about it.
Having used Federer's rackets (at least customised versions of them) the feedback you get is very interesting and you can understand why there was an evolution.
There's a guy called 15 points of tennis on RUclips who has tackled this very subject and is worth checking out. His insight is really really interesting.
I can't pick between Sinner and Alcaraz.
Both Sinner and Alcaraz were playing really dropped levels at the Davis Cup. Not sure what was up.
26:31 Was Casper being Ruud? 🤣
Definelty as u play more u kind of evolve and change some shots, i have developped a full western grip without necessarly planning for it. It just happened
Regarding Wimbledon, you say its not about grass but the game was and is in some parts called “lawn tennis” is it not so its the most original surface 😅. Djokovic might cross that too sadly for fed
We will see he will be 36 years old he is the favorite but we see how he does in lead up
@@colethomas903 yes maybe there is a sam querry repeat.
It will be interesting who is the guy that defeats Djokovic if they do at AO Wimbledon in 2023
@@colethomas903 i dont think it will happen next year, maybe 2024 lets see.
This wrist might say something
Point were doubled at 1 point, so counting Nadal's 2005 points, counting them today, you would need to double it. So based on that Nadal would have more points than Alcaraz today 😉
Nadal 2005 he play as much as Carlos is playing too
Smb once said, the sport is always grater than it’s champions. That was before RF.
It is still true. All-time, Laver is superior to Fed having won not one but two calendar-year Grand Slams (one being the only one in the Open Era) and Rafa dominated Fed all around: 24-15 etc.....
It’s 24-16 it he 24-17 if u count W/O
@@colethomas903 No, It is 24-15 if u count W/O
Great response to the ever-touchy GOAT debate; let me ask a different (simple) question then.
Whose your favorite player of all time? ;)
every one of the big three ,have his numbers for example : who is more consistent ?
- nadal the only no.1 in three different decades
- federer for the most consecutive weeks no.1
- novak for the most weeks as no.
///numbers can not tell the whole story ,,,different tastes
wimby is the worst in terms of quality tennis ( fact ) , r.g is the best
Right you are about RG >> Wimby
My hope is that Carlos will get the YE#1 - we will see how he does in the last 4 tournaments he plays in 2022 but I am certain he can do it. I just don't believe Casper has earned it. I think Rafa will be busy with his wife and his new baby, doubt he will try for it. Medvedev and Tsitisipas would have to make finals or win all the remaining titles and for others to be knocked out early too. Most likely Carlos will have deep runs in at least 3 of the 4 remaining tournaments he will play (Astana, Basel, Paris Masters, and ATP finals). If Casper somehow manages to get it he will not have earned it imo (I like Casper, don't get me wrong). Carlos has achieved the most in 2022: the most titles, the most finals, the most semis, the most matches won, the biggest gain from #32 in January to #1 in September. I just hope Carlos plays well and is able to do it!
Nobody deserves the number 1 ranking outside of Djokovic and Nadal this year(Politics + no points awarded in Wimby) tbh. However, if anybody outside those 2 had to have it this year, it would definitely Carlitos. I 100% agree with you about Ruud.
Nadal deserve it because he won 2 slams but let’s not kid yourself when you only do good mostly in the majors plus get injury your margin of error to get to #1 ain’t as good
Carlos has 2 tournaments this year he miss both to fatigue
He definitely has achieved the most outside of Nadal but he has definitely been the most consistent player this year
52 wins
5 titles
7 finals
NADAL DIDNT GET THE 720 POINTS FROM WIMBLEDON!!! THAT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE!!!
Carlos would still be ahead in the actual points for year now race he be closer
People have an unhealthy addiction with numbers when it comes to sports. This team won X, this player has Y amount of records. It really is silly at times.
Plenty of people will say that to them Rafa is the greatest, others will say Novak and others might say Roger. And all 3 are valid. All 3 are in that tier 3 or 4 steps ahead of everyone else. The differences are minute but what really matters is what that player made the fans and people in general feel. And that should be respected.
Exactly
Both Fed and Rafa are worldwide respected.
Rafa is an inspiration for all people worldwide for his magic play, resilience and humility,
Fed is respected for his class and elegant play. Not so much for humility.
Points basically doubled some point after 2005 so yes Rafa would have comfortably been the youngest No. 1 in that case.
2009
Well not true fed was winning most of the majors 04/05/06/07
@@colethomas903 Before September Rafa had already won RG, Rome, MC, Canada, Barcelona, Hamburg, Acapulco and had a final in Miami. That alone is over 7000 and I’m not even counting every other tournament where he lost earlier.
And what did federer do in 2005 ? pre September oh 9 titles pre USO win come on now Fed still been ahead of him roger worse tournament he played was MC I bet money lol Fed been ahead
Roger would had 10870 points post USO since he was defending champion at USO and you think Rafa had that beat ?
Was Casper being Ruud 😂😂.
I feel Djokovic finals vs Federer will have a longer lasting effect than Nadal's with Federer. Both for Federer and Djokovic, even when both probably would say their biggest rival was Nadal.
Wrong ! Nadal was Federer's rival in Federer's prime. Their 2008 Wimbledon final is considered the greatest match of all time. Nadal denied Federer GOAT status by preventing him to win a calendar-year Grand Slam in both 2006 and 2007. Those are facts Fed's fans and him are painfully aware of. Djokovic denying Fed his 21 Slam is somewhat equivalent to Medvedev denying Djokovic his 21st Slam. In fact the later is more important since Medvedev denied Djokovic a calendar-year Grand Slam.
@@danbotez1307 I dont agree, if Fed had beaten Djokovic in any of the four GS finals post 2011, which is the period where Djokovic crushed Nadal in almost every final, the debate of GOAT would be over. Federer and Nadal are pretty much even in hardcourts in GS, Nadal winning more on clay and Federer more on grass. Yes the 2008 Wimbledon final was amazing, but kind of even the matchup for Fedal in Wimbledon, Fed winning the previous 2 Wimbledons vs Nadal
@@zy9662 It was Nadal who beat Fed in Fed's prime (2004-2009) on Fed's best surface (grass) at a Slam, NOT Djokovic. Fed was never able to beat Nadal on Nadal's best surface (clay) at a Slam. Then Nadal beat Fed on hardcourt at the 2009 AO, thus 'de facto' ending Fed's prime.
During Fed's prime (2004-2009) Fed's record vs. Djokovic' on Djokovic's best surface (hardcourt) at Slams was 4-1. What happened between Fed and Djokovic post 2011 is of secondary importance, since Fed was beyond his prime.
For the record, Rafa vs. Djokovic H2H records at Slams are: 11- 7 as far as matches, and 5-4 as far as finals.
Your statement that "post 2011, which is the period where Djokovic crushed Nadal in almost every final" is a shameless lie. Their record in finals post 2011 is 10-8 overall in Djokovic's favor, and 4-2 in Slam finals in Rafa's favor. Basic parity, with Rafa having a clear advantage in Slam finals won. Rafa beat Djokovic on Djokovic's best surface (hardcourt) in a Slam final, while Djokovic, just like Federer, was never able to beat Rafa on Rafa's best surface (clay) in a Slam final.
Djokovic is the best of all time -
........in Serbija😂
In sebia he is . Does he have most gs titles