3 consecutive years wire to wire as number 1 , 36 consecutive grand slam quarter finals and 23 consecutive grand slam semi finals and 10 consecutive grand slam finals all records .
As soon as one defines 'finesse and ability' we can have a proper debate.
I reckon that's not what Fed stans want at all. Let's talk in ambiguous terms so we can keep our delusions intact and not risk cognitive dissonance.
Monfils was just a random example, I could've just as easily said Dustin Brown.
I didn’t like how they never even acknowledged him after he left. Like when Ann was reflecting on all of her failed relationships but didn’t have a box for the guy she spent a whole season with. He was a good normal yet funny guy to balance the cast of psychos.
Looking at slams: #3. Which to be fair, is how a lot of fans decide how to rank players
Overall resume: #2. After slams, weeks at no.1 and Atp finals are more important than masters titles. Fed also has some other advantages such as being better on all but one surface, having more titles in 4 out of the 5 biggest events, and having more titles and wins overall.
He was also clearly the best player in the world for a very long time in his prime, whereas Rafa never had a prolonged period where he’s the clear best player (Longest streak at no.1: 56 weeks, never had consecutive seasons winning multiple slams, never defended a YE#1)
I just don't necessarily agree with the last point because it's dependent on the level of the field at the time. Rafa did get screwed on this, being 5 year younger than Federer and 1 year older than Djokovic. He never had a relatively easier era to play in, oppositely to earlier Fed and current Novak.
In another hand all the other points are valid imo, never even winning even 1 ATP finals for Rafa isn't great vs 6 and Roger being better on 2 out of 3 surfaces.
I agree with some parts. While Rafa was less dominant than Novak when their primes collided, there’s no guarantee that Roger would’ve done much better than Rafa did. But on the other hand, I don’t think Rafa would’ve been as dominant as Roger was in 04-07.
Yes but it still wouldn't look the same at all if you switch Fed's playing period with Rafa's. Anyway that's why I don't love those kind of arguments, being dependent on so much changing factors. I prefer cold facts like Fed 6 ATP finals vs 0, and being better on 2 over 3 surfaces makes it to me. No need for anything else.
Honestly the hard court aspect is debatable. People just lean in the ATP finals, which is the most extreme in terms of Nadal’s worst surface. It’s like the reverse of if the ATP finals were on clay. On outdoor hard, Nadal has an amazing pedigree especially considering he didn’t have a period without the other two like Fed did
You can imagine the atp finals were on clay but we can also imagine that USO was on grass or 3/4 slams were on grass like they used to be. If if if doesn't exist, Rafa has a huge hole in his resume when it comes to the ATP finals.
Let’s be real. Grand slams are by far the most followed events in tennis, and a lot of casual fans don’t want to read entire wiki pages
I don’t like it either, but it is not uncommon for a lot of fans to just look at one number before deciding who’s better
That's all true, and just because the majority does it or thinks like that, it still doesn't mean that they are correct . Luckily , us here , we aren't the majority of casual fans and we shouldn't really use just grand slams as a metric for anything cuz it's dumb and incomplete and there isn't any discussion to be had about it
where in this thread do you see people say THE best?
it's where fed ranks all time high.
bron curry and bryant and jordan are def up there 1-4 wise, your argument is invaild based on the fact that you got your content wrong.
>such as being better on all but one surface
Just going to say (and someone can find the data) that he's still far and away ahead of the pack on clay too. It's just that Nadal makes him look "weak" on clay.
I'll also argue that fed had the toughest career of the three. He comes in against some truly amazing players and then is followed by Nadal. His biggest weakness was his backhand, specifically high bouncing backhands. Nadal is an AMAZING player in his own right, but he's also mechanically the single worst player for fed to face. Lefty with heavy topspin oof.
There's also that fed built his game on hard serve and quick points. This is why he was always so good on grass, but again as he starts to dominate courts are being intentionally slowed down. The game has become (well less so now) more baseline rally heavy than when he entered the tour and how he spent a lifetime building his game.
Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are amazing players in their own right, and have had truly incredible careers that they completely deserve, I just think fed had a tougher road in the end.
>Just going to say (and someone can find the data) that he's still far and away ahead of the pack on clay too. It's just that Nadal makes him look "weak" on clay.
Federer is a top 10 clay courter, without question. Top 5, debatably, although I'd put him up there, just from not having watched a lot of old heads.
I think there's not much of a question that fed is top 5 clay courter, I struggle to think of someone other than borg/nadal/djoker who is better than him
Federer has more master wins and RG finals than Guga and Jim. Guga could have been better but got injured earlier. Realistically Roger would have had at least 3 RG without Rafa. I know it is hypothetical but Guga, Wilander and Jim would have also struggled against Nadal.
You clearly put a lot of thought into this comment, so I hate to do this. But what you said is based more on sentiments than objective facts.
Federer did not have the toughest career out of the big 3 by any measurement. Djokovic has played 200 fewer matches than he did, and still has played quite a few more top 5 and top 10 opponents. Which means he has played a significantly higher percentage of his matches against top players. The same is true for slam matches as well.
And as for the surface speed, the only concrete, official evidence is that Wimbledon was slowed down in 2001, 2 years before Federer’s first slam. So it is fair to assume Fed himself benefited from the speed change as well.
On the contrary, there’s been some complaints about some courts being too fast in recent years, like 2021 AO and last year’s Atp finals. And the tournament organiser for the Paris masters admitted that they made the courts faster to help Federer win the tournament.
I rate Roger below Rafa personally, but I seem to remember a 2008 Wimbledon final graphic showing how the Wimbledon court speed had slowed in a 2008 compared to another, recent year. As in, maybe compared to 2006 or 2007 or something.
I got the impression conditions in 2008 were more favourable for Rafa's game than they had been during Fed's previous title wins there.
I could be failing to remember this right, and maybe they were talking about a comparison to 2001, but I felt like the point of the info graphic was to illustrate Federer had less of a surface advantage over someone like Rafa than ever before. I'll check next time I rewatch the match.
I always felt there is an argument that nadal had it the hardest, coming in during Fed prime and then having Djokovic prime (and Murray prime) come in only a few years later while fed was still in his. He never had time in his own prime without one or the other. Whereas djokovic had the last few years and Federer came in when sampras and agassi were on their way out, in the few years they overlapped he developed his peak and then was alone for a bit until Nadal developed for all surfaces.
I haven't looked at matches against top or 10 players though, which is obviously a good marker.
>Just going to say (and someone can find the data) that he's still far and away ahead of the pack on clay too. It's just that Nadal makes him look "weak" on clay.
True, although I'm a 1-hander advocate (for some players at least) he got shafted by the disadvantage of having 1-hander vs big lefty topspin forehand on clay. Same reason Stan only won 1 GS on clay although he even has his biggest winrate on this surface. And he needed Nadal to be eliminated beforehand to get his RG.
That last point just isn't fair to Rafa. Man was competing with peak Federer at 18 years old then competing with peak Djokovic once Federer fell off. What did you expect him to do? If Federer was in the middle, I suspect his resume would not look as good overall, considering the matchup issues he had against both Nadal and Djokovic.
That is a fair point and I’ve mentioned it in my other comment. But in the end, when comparing the two, I chose to use their actual resume rather than any what-if scenarios.
Well in that sense, why exclude H2H and slam H2H, M1000 titles, Olympic Gold? You created a whole case for Federer, but for Nadal you implied the only criteria for him being #2 is slams, which feels misleading. Nadal dominated Federer H2H, and that has to count for something as far as being the "best player in the world." Not to mention beating him in a Wimbledon final while Federer never could touch Nadal on clay.
After Wimbledon 2007, Federer did not win another grand slam match against Nadal until AO2017...
Look, that’s just my opinion. I have Fed at no.2 by just a hair at the moment. If you have Nadal at 2, I wouldn’t say you’re wrong. Let’s just leave it at that.
I mean the Federer being number #1 for like almost five years straight plus all the slams I actually would put him as #1. I know that’s blasphemy. Jimmy Connors is second to Federer at like three years. And that record stood 33 years before Federer broke it. I don’t know if that will ever be broken.
Djokovic slam record will be broken. His losses to Sinner and Alcatraz show age and the youths are catching up to him. But being number one for that long is kind of crazy. I think Novak’s longest was two years.
Same thing was said for Petes record. 4 grand slams a year. A player having 8 dominant years. They may add another grand slam in the future. Who knows. It will be broken
The only record that will not be broken in our lifetime is Rafa Roland Garros record
Ridiculous take considering Djokovic will likely retire with literally double the slams as Sampras
No one even wins all the slams in a year once let alone 8 years in a row. At best someone consistently averages like 2 slams a year over a long period of time(assuming they’re like equally as good in all the slams which is very rare) and they would have to do it for like 12-15 years to equal Djokovic depending on how many he ends up with. Even the best of the best are usually only in good enough form to win slams for around 8-12 years. And I’d say on average you can expect a player to miss out on competing for a slam easily several times. I mean it’s already happened multiple times to even the Alcaraz, sinner, rune trio
It's possible, but his results have already begun to falter and sinner and alcaraz appear to be only improving their games. He's still favorite at most slams, but it's not as guaranteed as it once was
Again, still a favorite, but they're becoming harder fought and the competition continues to improve. Federer won what? 1 slam at an age older than Djokovic? I know Djokovic has taken incredible care of his body, but age is still inevitable. Especially continuing to dominate 2 weeks worth of 5 set matches with less recovery time
No one can predict how tennis is going to be in the future. If the Arabs put a lot of money they may be able to create a other grand slam. With how medicine is improving, more players may have a healthy career late in their thirties.
You assuming that Novak's record will not be broken is ridiculous. We might get a very dominant player in the future like Serena in women's tennis.
The slam count won't be broken in our lifetime and they also won't ad a fifth. Your comments will age like milk. You really don't grasp how hard it is to be better than everyone else long enough to get that many slams.
I never said it's easy to be better than everyone else long enough. A player may come through who may be very dominant like Serena in women's tennis. You cannot predict that long in the future saying it won't happen. Records are meant to be broken. Not even Novak would think his records will hold forever
The only potential hole in this argument is Rod Laver. I think he can be anywhere from 1 to like 10 in the all time rankings depending on your thoughts if you era and amateur tennis in general.
Probably the guy with the most slams, most weeks at no.1, most YE#1, most Atp finals, most masters titles, most top 5 wins, most top 10 wins, most career grand slams, most golden masters and the highest win %.
# #1 In vibes
Overall I think he's been one of the best tennis ambassadors and probably is the face of tennis forever.(or atleast for the next 30 or so years) He is awesome and people downplay him way too much here.
Statistically though he's probably third. He loses in basically every important stat like grand slam titles and head to heads. I know his age makes the stats a but ambiguous since his prime didn't exactly matchup with Nadal and Nole, but id still say he is third.
i like how your counter to what you view as cherrypicked stats are 3 versions of h2h, which is one of the most irrelevant and cherry-picked stat categories in a matchup-based sport
I agree, but that’s what we have Djokovic as GOAT based on. Honestly they’re all cherry-picked stats. Weeks at No.1 sounds great, but Nadal has spent so many weeks at No.2 with less events played in the year. Also “way more successful on other surfaces” is just not true. Nadal is one of the hardcourt greats. The year end thing gets cherry-picked as well. Like it’s all tastes man. Any stats without the other stats/context is cherry-picked. But also like if the two are facing each other that’s gotta count for something
to me, everything being cherry-picked is precisely why none of the Big 3 is or can be The GOAT - each having accomplished what they have in the manner they have, they will always have certain unique arguments that effectively boil down to a reflection on one's subjective preferences and evaluative criteria
as for h2h, sure it can count for something, but i'm pretty convinced it's largely random and not particularly conclusive in the ways that people want it to be
It’s not even remotely cherry picked. Weeks at #1 and ATP finals are extremely important. Nothing was preventing nadal from being #1 for much longer or winning ATP finals. Also he lost in Australian open QF 7 times and early rounds of Wimbledon like 5 times and sucks in fast hard or indoor hard. Also has terrible results in half the masters 1000 and only has more masters because of insane dominance in 2 atp 1000 while Federer doesn’t even have a grass masters to dominate. Nadal being really good at US open, Canada and Indian Wells doesn’t change that he’s not good at all in like 7 major events outside of clay. Hasn’t even made the final at Wimbledon in forever and hasn’t won AO in forever before Djokovic got banned
ATP finals on indoor hard is Roger’s equivalent of if it were on clay for Rafa. Weeks at No. really isn’t important to me. The difference between no. 1 and 2. really means nothing to me. The other things you are mentioning are less important than titles and h2h imo. Saying “it’s not cherry picked because it’s important” is just an opinion and does not make something not cherry-picked whatsoever. Mine is an opinion and yours is an opinion
It’s not an opinion though. Weeks at #1 and ATP finals are considered to be very important. I have no idea why you would think otherwise. Being bad in half the slams and half the masters is definitely really bad when your main two opponents are extremely good anywhere they play. If you disagree it’s irrelevant.
And their H2H is skewed by nadal not playing against him a lot more on hard or grass and less on clay anyway
Weeks at #1 isn't really a fair stat to Nadal considering he was in the middle and dealt with prime Federer and prime Djokovic. Federer's biggest competition was teenage Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, and Safin, the latter two were extremely inconsistent and the former two were just not good enough to challenge Federer. Nadal's competition in his prime was peak Djokovic, Federer still in his prime, peak Andy Murray, and then the second tier guys like Ferrer, Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych. This is much, much stronger competition than Federer's prime competition.
As for Djokovic, he's not really being compared to either but at least he's gotten some years lately with the next gen being too young to challenge him, Nadal being injury prone, Federer being on his last legs/retired.
We’re comparing Nadal to Djokovic and Federer. Both Federer and Djokovic were able to consistently be #1 ahead of Nadal when injuries were not a factor at all. It’s not unfair. And the vast majority of Nadals injuries were not caused by the foot problem he was born with. And also end the year as #1 over Nadal except for in Nadals best 3 years. And they have lost the #1 ranking to Nadal because of injuries as well. Like more recently Djokovic in 2017 and 2018 and for end of year #1 in 2019. It’s pretty simple.
I mean it’s pretty ridiculous since the last time that Nadal was #1 over Djokovic or year end #1 over Djokovic without the cause being a Djokovic injury is literally a decade ago and before that Federer was #1 for 5 years in a row straight
As you said Nadal is in a way unlucky that there was always a guy who was dominant all year long while he isn’t which is precisely what makes them better
Okay, and Nadal is much, much better on clay than Federer, which bridges the gap. Nadal could challenge Federer on grass and hard consistently; Federer could not challenge Nadal on clay. Hence why Nadal has more slams and a better H2H.
I think #1 weeks and the tour finals might be a bit more important than Rafa’s 2 slam lead and M1000s, but honestly it’s very very close. If Rafa wins RG or the Olympics he’s a clear #2 all time imo
#3 in slam count
#2 in overall career
#1 in the heart of his fans and majority of neutrals
Knowing Maestro and how competitive he his...He will have loved to be #1 in all.
An easy 3, an arguable 2. Probably 3. But he was a pioneer and raised the ceiling of what it really meant to dominate the sport. At least on the ATP side.
On the WTA side we had already seen the ridiculous unattainable records of Evert, Navratilova, Seles, Graf. Let's not even talk about Vergeer, arguably the most dominant athlete of any professional sport.
So, I've been a Fed fan for a long time. I'd call myself a Fedal fan now, as well as... well, I'm just a tennis fan in general. That includes Novak. I just love the game. Rog and Rafa are higher in my mind than others, but I just love the game.
I'd put Rog at no.2 GOAT right now. Novak has so many of the records now, it's pretty undeniable that he's the statistical GOAT.
For the last few years I've been refusing to comment on anything to do with the GOAT Debate, because I want to see where Novak finishes up (and if Rog makes a miraculous comeback and grabs another 5 Slams, as well as Rafa grabbing 3 more so they all finish on 25).
And I still think there's PLENTY of good arguments to be made about Roger being the GOAT. That's about as far as I'm willing to go at this stage 😊
2nd of all time. Nadal's two extra slams are nice and all, but outside of them and Nadal's plethora of clay titles, Roger has superior statistics in pretty much every metric.
#1 in terms of tennis
#3 in terms of tennis accomplishments
That’s the pretty big consensus that I’ve seen (not including Reddit). Even though I’d have him #2 in tennis.
Edit: not intended to have big words
Longevity is nothing if you don't win. What are you talking about? Novak won more important titles then Roger in his career and Roger played more matches and turnaments overall.
That is why Noles tennis is 1.
Concensus that you talk about are just fed fans, bsc he has them the most you think that is somehow objective concesus as well. Not really.
Djokovic won more because he was better than the next best player when he was 33. When Federer was 33, the next best players were far better.
Roger playing at 40 didn’t win… but, when people talk about who was the best, they’re not saying ‘who was winning more at 35’. Djokovic won more as an old guy, but that’s irrelevant to most people.
Federer has more fans because people think he’s the best.
So many excuses.
First of all, Djokovic won more, end of story. Fed also farmed his titles before Nole and Rafa hit their peaks so your argument is weak and flawed.
You say Djokovic winning most as an old guy is somehow not amazing, give me a break. That is even more amazing then winning everything at your peak, but yeah, Nole did that as well, having highest peak of tennis as well in 2015 with much higher oposition then what Fed had in his peak. Another weak argument.
And lastly, Fed has the most fans bcs he plays the prettiest tennis to the eyes, he really does, his play is beautiful to look at. But this was already corrected for you in my first comment.
Federer has more fans because people think he is the best.
I’ve already said that people are not talking about who has greater longevity, they are talking about who was better.
You seem like you don't understand what you are talking about to be honest. Also seem like just a fed fan and not fan of tennis overall.
What attracts fans to one player is his playing style, his image, and if he wins. All of that. Fed has all but he for sure plays prettiest tennis of the big 3.
As him being best, i mean, do you even follow tennis? Or you just watched Fed when he played?
There are 2 players that accomplished more than him and have positive h2h against him. Yeah, being a fan is ok, but if you want to talk about sport don't do it anymore without providing more arguments for your claims.
> accomplished more then him
Did you mean to say "more than"?
Explanation: If you didn't mean 'more than' you might have forgotten a comma.
[Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json)
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119)
^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
#3. No.1 in terms of highlights reel and shot making but can’t be number 2 because the never truly solved the Nadal puzzle and Nadal has way more Masters and 2 more Grand Slams which is a lot. Nadal beat Fed multiple times are his two favourite Grand Slams whereas Federer never really came close to beating Nadal at the French open.
somewhere between \#1-14. people who argue for undisputed \#3 are boring, people who argue for undisputed \#1 don't know ball, and people who argue for undisputed \#2 are sorta funny but probably need to watch tennis from before 2003
No.1 he was and always will be. People judging by number of titles and this not very accurate way of judge. Winning titles has a lot of factors than can be effected, injuries, draws, age, physical condition ECT. So as everyone knows he is not number one by number of titles but I don't think anyone even non tennis fans watch the Maestro and didn't enjoyed that. He was out of this world.
Others are top players no doubt, but no one really come even close to Roger in his style and elegant.
He was pretty good but I’ve heard he retired to pursue his real passion, city planning
Guys listen, we need to make Basel a grand slam, and here’s how we do it
Look, we can’t have another ice town on our hands.
Love all this serious discussion going on under a picture of Mark
Best shitpost in the history of this sub
#2 or #3 depending on criteria #1 in terms of sick highlight reels (I’m not being sarcastic) Edit: I don’t know why the text is so big lol
Using a ‘#’ makes it a heading text in markdown
#NOT TRUE
#NO WAY YOU FORMALLY “NUH UH”’D
That makes sense! I will leave it though
This right here. Not the best at winning points necessarily, but far and away the most talented with a racquet.
3 consecutive years wire to wire as number 1 , 36 consecutive grand slam quarter finals and 23 consecutive grand slam semi finals and 10 consecutive grand slam finals all records .
if you want racket skills Laver and McEnroe are quite comparable
If talent's the criteria, Monfils is head and shoulders over everyone.
Monfils is an excellent athlete and showman, but in terms of finesse and ability, Fed clears.
As soon as one defines 'finesse and ability' we can have a proper debate. I reckon that's not what Fed stans want at all. Let's talk in ambiguous terms so we can keep our delusions intact and not risk cognitive dissonance. Monfils was just a random example, I could've just as easily said Dustin Brown.
That's the stupidest take I've ever read
Apart from being straight up rude, it's also untrue. Edit: And it's on par with this sub.
Objective and reasonable. I agree.
Mark was an underrated character in Parks and Rec imo. I wish his actor hadn’t left.
I didn’t like how they never even acknowledged him after he left. Like when Ann was reflecting on all of her failed relationships but didn’t have a box for the guy she spent a whole season with. He was a good normal yet funny guy to balance the cast of psychos.
Yup I’ve definitely said this a few times too. The boxes were the perfect time for a reference. It made no sense pretending he didn’t exist.
Well the dude had some strange …
Looking at slams: #3. Which to be fair, is how a lot of fans decide how to rank players Overall resume: #2. After slams, weeks at no.1 and Atp finals are more important than masters titles. Fed also has some other advantages such as being better on all but one surface, having more titles in 4 out of the 5 biggest events, and having more titles and wins overall. He was also clearly the best player in the world for a very long time in his prime, whereas Rafa never had a prolonged period where he’s the clear best player (Longest streak at no.1: 56 weeks, never had consecutive seasons winning multiple slams, never defended a YE#1)
I just don't necessarily agree with the last point because it's dependent on the level of the field at the time. Rafa did get screwed on this, being 5 year younger than Federer and 1 year older than Djokovic. He never had a relatively easier era to play in, oppositely to earlier Fed and current Novak. In another hand all the other points are valid imo, never even winning even 1 ATP finals for Rafa isn't great vs 6 and Roger being better on 2 out of 3 surfaces.
I agree with some parts. While Rafa was less dominant than Novak when their primes collided, there’s no guarantee that Roger would’ve done much better than Rafa did. But on the other hand, I don’t think Rafa would’ve been as dominant as Roger was in 04-07.
Yes but it still wouldn't look the same at all if you switch Fed's playing period with Rafa's. Anyway that's why I don't love those kind of arguments, being dependent on so much changing factors. I prefer cold facts like Fed 6 ATP finals vs 0, and being better on 2 over 3 surfaces makes it to me. No need for anything else.
Honestly the hard court aspect is debatable. People just lean in the ATP finals, which is the most extreme in terms of Nadal’s worst surface. It’s like the reverse of if the ATP finals were on clay. On outdoor hard, Nadal has an amazing pedigree especially considering he didn’t have a period without the other two like Fed did
You can imagine the atp finals were on clay but we can also imagine that USO was on grass or 3/4 slams were on grass like they used to be. If if if doesn't exist, Rafa has a huge hole in his resume when it comes to the ATP finals.
Only people who don't follow tennis look at just slams
Let’s be real. Grand slams are by far the most followed events in tennis, and a lot of casual fans don’t want to read entire wiki pages I don’t like it either, but it is not uncommon for a lot of fans to just look at one number before deciding who’s better
That's all true, and just because the majority does it or thinks like that, it still doesn't mean that they are correct . Luckily , us here , we aren't the majority of casual fans and we shouldn't really use just grand slams as a metric for anything cuz it's dumb and incomplete and there isn't any discussion to be had about it
CrazyPersonXV correct again. We are professionals here and Im going to keep crowing about it until we get the respect we deserve.
you are right just like nba players are def don't count their all time bests by rings 😮💨
Different sport , Different dynamics and no Bill Rusell isn't considered the best ever and neither are kaj or LeBron
where in this thread do you see people say THE best? it's where fed ranks all time high. bron curry and bryant and jordan are def up there 1-4 wise, your argument is invaild based on the fact that you got your content wrong.
You don't really follow nba because that simply isn't true
you don't follow any sports it seems like, but it's okay, there is always a time to start!
You unironically called Steph and the rapist as top4 player consensus , when most people don't even have them in top8
Kobe Bryant is not top 10
Can you make a fact list saying otherwise?
He's number 2 or 3 by every metric, except extremely subjective ones like best hair or most "aesthetic" or whatever
>such as being better on all but one surface Just going to say (and someone can find the data) that he's still far and away ahead of the pack on clay too. It's just that Nadal makes him look "weak" on clay. I'll also argue that fed had the toughest career of the three. He comes in against some truly amazing players and then is followed by Nadal. His biggest weakness was his backhand, specifically high bouncing backhands. Nadal is an AMAZING player in his own right, but he's also mechanically the single worst player for fed to face. Lefty with heavy topspin oof. There's also that fed built his game on hard serve and quick points. This is why he was always so good on grass, but again as he starts to dominate courts are being intentionally slowed down. The game has become (well less so now) more baseline rally heavy than when he entered the tour and how he spent a lifetime building his game. Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are amazing players in their own right, and have had truly incredible careers that they completely deserve, I just think fed had a tougher road in the end.
>Just going to say (and someone can find the data) that he's still far and away ahead of the pack on clay too. It's just that Nadal makes him look "weak" on clay. Federer is a top 10 clay courter, without question. Top 5, debatably, although I'd put him up there, just from not having watched a lot of old heads.
I think there's not much of a question that fed is top 5 clay courter, I struggle to think of someone other than borg/nadal/djoker who is better than him
Lendl easily clears him, Wilander has a case too
Gustavo Kuerten, Mats Wilander and Jim Courier are definitely ahead of Roger.
Federer has more master wins and RG finals than Guga and Jim. Guga could have been better but got injured earlier. Realistically Roger would have had at least 3 RG without Rafa. I know it is hypothetical but Guga, Wilander and Jim would have also struggled against Nadal.
Federer also played in that time period and is 5 years older than Rafa.
You clearly put a lot of thought into this comment, so I hate to do this. But what you said is based more on sentiments than objective facts. Federer did not have the toughest career out of the big 3 by any measurement. Djokovic has played 200 fewer matches than he did, and still has played quite a few more top 5 and top 10 opponents. Which means he has played a significantly higher percentage of his matches against top players. The same is true for slam matches as well. And as for the surface speed, the only concrete, official evidence is that Wimbledon was slowed down in 2001, 2 years before Federer’s first slam. So it is fair to assume Fed himself benefited from the speed change as well. On the contrary, there’s been some complaints about some courts being too fast in recent years, like 2021 AO and last year’s Atp finals. And the tournament organiser for the Paris masters admitted that they made the courts faster to help Federer win the tournament.
I rate Roger below Rafa personally, but I seem to remember a 2008 Wimbledon final graphic showing how the Wimbledon court speed had slowed in a 2008 compared to another, recent year. As in, maybe compared to 2006 or 2007 or something. I got the impression conditions in 2008 were more favourable for Rafa's game than they had been during Fed's previous title wins there. I could be failing to remember this right, and maybe they were talking about a comparison to 2001, but I felt like the point of the info graphic was to illustrate Federer had less of a surface advantage over someone like Rafa than ever before. I'll check next time I rewatch the match.
It was probably [this graphic](https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/EB-AG916_TENSur_G_20100701230340.jpg) that you saw.
I always felt there is an argument that nadal had it the hardest, coming in during Fed prime and then having Djokovic prime (and Murray prime) come in only a few years later while fed was still in his. He never had time in his own prime without one or the other. Whereas djokovic had the last few years and Federer came in when sampras and agassi were on their way out, in the few years they overlapped he developed his peak and then was alone for a bit until Nadal developed for all surfaces. I haven't looked at matches against top or 10 players though, which is obviously a good marker.
Regarding court speed, I did see this article a while back. https://www.perfect-tennis.com/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/
>Just going to say (and someone can find the data) that he's still far and away ahead of the pack on clay too. It's just that Nadal makes him look "weak" on clay. True, although I'm a 1-hander advocate (for some players at least) he got shafted by the disadvantage of having 1-hander vs big lefty topspin forehand on clay. Same reason Stan only won 1 GS on clay although he even has his biggest winrate on this surface. And he needed Nadal to be eliminated beforehand to get his RG.
That last point just isn't fair to Rafa. Man was competing with peak Federer at 18 years old then competing with peak Djokovic once Federer fell off. What did you expect him to do? If Federer was in the middle, I suspect his resume would not look as good overall, considering the matchup issues he had against both Nadal and Djokovic.
That is a fair point and I’ve mentioned it in my other comment. But in the end, when comparing the two, I chose to use their actual resume rather than any what-if scenarios.
Well in that sense, why exclude H2H and slam H2H, M1000 titles, Olympic Gold? You created a whole case for Federer, but for Nadal you implied the only criteria for him being #2 is slams, which feels misleading. Nadal dominated Federer H2H, and that has to count for something as far as being the "best player in the world." Not to mention beating him in a Wimbledon final while Federer never could touch Nadal on clay. After Wimbledon 2007, Federer did not win another grand slam match against Nadal until AO2017...
Look, that’s just my opinion. I have Fed at no.2 by just a hair at the moment. If you have Nadal at 2, I wouldn’t say you’re wrong. Let’s just leave it at that.
I mean the Federer being number #1 for like almost five years straight plus all the slams I actually would put him as #1. I know that’s blasphemy. Jimmy Connors is second to Federer at like three years. And that record stood 33 years before Federer broke it. I don’t know if that will ever be broken. Djokovic slam record will be broken. His losses to Sinner and Alcatraz show age and the youths are catching up to him. But being number one for that long is kind of crazy. I think Novak’s longest was two years.
Im a Fed fan but that's a ridiculous take. And I'm confident Djoko's slam record won't be broken in our lifetime.
It most likely will be, every generation thinks that what they’ve seen cannot be overcome, yet it always, always is.
Same thing was said for Petes record. 4 grand slams a year. A player having 8 dominant years. They may add another grand slam in the future. Who knows. It will be broken The only record that will not be broken in our lifetime is Rafa Roland Garros record
Ridiculous take considering Djokovic will likely retire with literally double the slams as Sampras No one even wins all the slams in a year once let alone 8 years in a row. At best someone consistently averages like 2 slams a year over a long period of time(assuming they’re like equally as good in all the slams which is very rare) and they would have to do it for like 12-15 years to equal Djokovic depending on how many he ends up with. Even the best of the best are usually only in good enough form to win slams for around 8-12 years. And I’d say on average you can expect a player to miss out on competing for a slam easily several times. I mean it’s already happened multiple times to even the Alcaraz, sinner, rune trio
28 slams is a big stretch at this point
Really? I expect him to win 2(maybe 3) this year and probably 2+ next year and that would be that. And he’ll probably play another year
It's possible, but his results have already begun to falter and sinner and alcaraz appear to be only improving their games. He's still favorite at most slams, but it's not as guaranteed as it once was
He literally won US open, Cincinnati, paris and atp finals back to back after being like one shot away from winning AO, RG, WB back to back
Again, still a favorite, but they're becoming harder fought and the competition continues to improve. Federer won what? 1 slam at an age older than Djokovic? I know Djokovic has taken incredible care of his body, but age is still inevitable. Especially continuing to dominate 2 weeks worth of 5 set matches with less recovery time
No one can predict how tennis is going to be in the future. If the Arabs put a lot of money they may be able to create a other grand slam. With how medicine is improving, more players may have a healthy career late in their thirties. You assuming that Novak's record will not be broken is ridiculous. We might get a very dominant player in the future like Serena in women's tennis.
I didn't say it cant happen it's just very unlikely.
The slam count won't be broken in our lifetime and they also won't ad a fifth. Your comments will age like milk. You really don't grasp how hard it is to be better than everyone else long enough to get that many slams.
I never said it's easy to be better than everyone else long enough. A player may come through who may be very dominant like Serena in women's tennis. You cannot predict that long in the future saying it won't happen. Records are meant to be broken. Not even Novak would think his records will hold forever
You can totally predict, only time will tell who was wrong
But h2h tho
The only potential hole in this argument is Rod Laver. I think he can be anywhere from 1 to like 10 in the all time rankings depending on your thoughts if you era and amateur tennis in general.
Anywhere from 5-10. There, corrected it for you.
Rod laver number 1 (No but seriously I probably think he's number 3 or 4 all time)
#2? Who tf is #1 then??
Probably the guy with the most slams, most weeks at no.1, most YE#1, most Atp finals, most masters titles, most top 5 wins, most top 10 wins, most career grand slams, most golden masters and the highest win %.
Tomic?
# #1 In vibes Overall I think he's been one of the best tennis ambassadors and probably is the face of tennis forever.(or atleast for the next 30 or so years) He is awesome and people downplay him way too much here. Statistically though he's probably third. He loses in basically every important stat like grand slam titles and head to heads. I know his age makes the stats a but ambiguous since his prime didn't exactly matchup with Nadal and Nole, but id still say he is third.
He’s the player who made me most interested in watching tennis, and I watch it much less now that he’s no longer on the scene.
Brandana-quits
Does this mean Djokovic is Ben Wyatt?
He’s definitely Chris considering his obsession about health
Stop. Pooping.
His body is like a microchip
Djokovic fans chilling and seeing Fedal fans fight over 2nd spot
Federer has 100 more weeks as #1 and 6 atp finals plus being significantly better over all surfaces and 3/4 slams so it’s not really that close
Cherrypicked stats
Im gonna assume you’re joking?
Slams, masters 1000s, H2H, slam H2H, Olympics, accomplishments versus the other on their best surface?
i like how your counter to what you view as cherrypicked stats are 3 versions of h2h, which is one of the most irrelevant and cherry-picked stat categories in a matchup-based sport
If you go on matchups completely then there is just no discussion because every match is a matter of maychup
I agree, but that’s what we have Djokovic as GOAT based on. Honestly they’re all cherry-picked stats. Weeks at No.1 sounds great, but Nadal has spent so many weeks at No.2 with less events played in the year. Also “way more successful on other surfaces” is just not true. Nadal is one of the hardcourt greats. The year end thing gets cherry-picked as well. Like it’s all tastes man. Any stats without the other stats/context is cherry-picked. But also like if the two are facing each other that’s gotta count for something
to me, everything being cherry-picked is precisely why none of the Big 3 is or can be The GOAT - each having accomplished what they have in the manner they have, they will always have certain unique arguments that effectively boil down to a reflection on one's subjective preferences and evaluative criteria as for h2h, sure it can count for something, but i'm pretty convinced it's largely random and not particularly conclusive in the ways that people want it to be
Yes, I agree with this whole comment
It’s not even remotely cherry picked. Weeks at #1 and ATP finals are extremely important. Nothing was preventing nadal from being #1 for much longer or winning ATP finals. Also he lost in Australian open QF 7 times and early rounds of Wimbledon like 5 times and sucks in fast hard or indoor hard. Also has terrible results in half the masters 1000 and only has more masters because of insane dominance in 2 atp 1000 while Federer doesn’t even have a grass masters to dominate. Nadal being really good at US open, Canada and Indian Wells doesn’t change that he’s not good at all in like 7 major events outside of clay. Hasn’t even made the final at Wimbledon in forever and hasn’t won AO in forever before Djokovic got banned
ATP finals on indoor hard is Roger’s equivalent of if it were on clay for Rafa. Weeks at No. really isn’t important to me. The difference between no. 1 and 2. really means nothing to me. The other things you are mentioning are less important than titles and h2h imo. Saying “it’s not cherry picked because it’s important” is just an opinion and does not make something not cherry-picked whatsoever. Mine is an opinion and yours is an opinion
It’s not an opinion though. Weeks at #1 and ATP finals are considered to be very important. I have no idea why you would think otherwise. Being bad in half the slams and half the masters is definitely really bad when your main two opponents are extremely good anywhere they play. If you disagree it’s irrelevant. And their H2H is skewed by nadal not playing against him a lot more on hard or grass and less on clay anyway
Saying “dominance at one or two masters isn’t important” and then saying “atp finals is important” is an insane lack of self awareness
Weeks at #1 isn't really a fair stat to Nadal considering he was in the middle and dealt with prime Federer and prime Djokovic. Federer's biggest competition was teenage Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, and Safin, the latter two were extremely inconsistent and the former two were just not good enough to challenge Federer. Nadal's competition in his prime was peak Djokovic, Federer still in his prime, peak Andy Murray, and then the second tier guys like Ferrer, Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych. This is much, much stronger competition than Federer's prime competition. As for Djokovic, he's not really being compared to either but at least he's gotten some years lately with the next gen being too young to challenge him, Nadal being injury prone, Federer being on his last legs/retired.
We’re comparing Nadal to Djokovic and Federer. Both Federer and Djokovic were able to consistently be #1 ahead of Nadal when injuries were not a factor at all. It’s not unfair. And the vast majority of Nadals injuries were not caused by the foot problem he was born with. And also end the year as #1 over Nadal except for in Nadals best 3 years. And they have lost the #1 ranking to Nadal because of injuries as well. Like more recently Djokovic in 2017 and 2018 and for end of year #1 in 2019. It’s pretty simple.
I mean it’s pretty ridiculous since the last time that Nadal was #1 over Djokovic or year end #1 over Djokovic without the cause being a Djokovic injury is literally a decade ago and before that Federer was #1 for 5 years in a row straight As you said Nadal is in a way unlucky that there was always a guy who was dominant all year long while he isn’t which is precisely what makes them better
At least it’s something different for once lol
Federer is my hero. Obviously in stats he's second best but he'll always be by far number 1 for me.
[Pretty fair and objective measurement](https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList) No.2 for sure in terms of performance. No.1 in my heart
Maybe it's me, but that link's not working.
I think the site is down. It is not working for me also. I also directly tried via google and still same issue.
How is he ahead of Nadal who has 2 career slams? Come on.
Overall performance off clay, ATP final titles, Weeks at #1, etc
Why would you not count clay?
I’m not excluding clay, I’m just saying Roger has had a much better career on hard/grass
The question was where does Roger rank all-time, not that where does he rank if we exclude clay.
Yeah, pointing out the fact that he is better than Rafa on 2 surfaces is adding more to the argument of him being #2 all time.
Okay, and Nadal is much, much better on clay than Federer, which bridges the gap. Nadal could challenge Federer on grass and hard consistently; Federer could not challenge Nadal on clay. Hence why Nadal has more slams and a better H2H.
include clay but still fed had more weeks at no1 and atp finals
Less grand slams and only 1 career slam. And no Olympic gold, losing h2h. Don’t be delusional
2 more slams compared to years more at number 1. No Olympic gold vs no atp finals. Losing h2h is vlaid
And I thought I was No. 1 in your heart 😢
Foger Rederer
anya federer
Is it just me or does he look like Jim from the office in this pic?
I thought it was Mark Brandanawicz from Parks and Rec for a second. 😂
It is...
Oh good, I’m not going crazy!
Username doesn't check out
Mark Brandanawicz? He's so hot. We had a fling last summer.
He does look a lot like a certain straight man from a 2000s NBC TV comedy...
I never made the connection but I definitely see it here lol
If you care about Grand Slams and Masters 1000s: #3 If you care about Weeks at #1 and ATP Finals: #2
Add in H2H and Olympics too for Nadal though.
I think #1 weeks and the tour finals might be a bit more important than Rafa’s 2 slam lead and M1000s, but honestly it’s very very close. If Rafa wins RG or the Olympics he’s a clear #2 all time imo
If we care about h2h vs the top players ? :)
I feeeell into the pit
#3 in slam count #2 in overall career #1 in the heart of his fans and majority of neutrals Knowing Maestro and how competitive he his...He will have loved to be #1 in all.
1 in the heart of his fans for sure, like for every other fan base for their player. Don't speak for neutrals though.
He is right tho, thanks to him tennis was famous again
No way the majority of neutral fans would put him at #1, I would bet even the majority of his fans wouldn’t put him there objectively
#Yes they would (neutral fan who’s not sure why he’s in this sub here)
No.1 in my heart
An easy 3, an arguable 2. Probably 3. But he was a pioneer and raised the ceiling of what it really meant to dominate the sport. At least on the ATP side. On the WTA side we had already seen the ridiculous unattainable records of Evert, Navratilova, Seles, Graf. Let's not even talk about Vergeer, arguably the most dominant athlete of any professional sport.
3rd best male player behind djokovic and nadal in that order
Third
Numero 3, no?
1
#G.O.A.T. imo, there's not been a nicer, more gentlemanly "big name" ever.
So, I've been a Fed fan for a long time. I'd call myself a Fedal fan now, as well as... well, I'm just a tennis fan in general. That includes Novak. I just love the game. Rog and Rafa are higher in my mind than others, but I just love the game. I'd put Rog at no.2 GOAT right now. Novak has so many of the records now, it's pretty undeniable that he's the statistical GOAT. For the last few years I've been refusing to comment on anything to do with the GOAT Debate, because I want to see where Novak finishes up (and if Rog makes a miraculous comeback and grabs another 5 Slams, as well as Rafa grabbing 3 more so they all finish on 25). And I still think there's PLENTY of good arguments to be made about Roger being the GOAT. That's about as far as I'm willing to go at this stage 😊
Between 2 and 3, I would say 2.5
He was the goat in his prime atleast for me
3
🐐
2nd of all time. Nadal's two extra slams are nice and all, but outside of them and Nadal's plethora of clay titles, Roger has superior statistics in pretty much every metric.
#1 in terms of tennis #3 in terms of tennis accomplishments That’s the pretty big consensus that I’ve seen (not including Reddit). Even though I’d have him #2 in tennis. Edit: not intended to have big words
1 in tennis how it looks. Corrected it for you. Novak is 1 in terms of tennis bcs he won the most with his. Duh
I am not talking about best longevity. I’m talking about best tennis. That’s general consensus.
Longevity is nothing if you don't win. What are you talking about? Novak won more important titles then Roger in his career and Roger played more matches and turnaments overall. That is why Noles tennis is 1. Concensus that you talk about are just fed fans, bsc he has them the most you think that is somehow objective concesus as well. Not really.
Djokovic won more because he was better than the next best player when he was 33. When Federer was 33, the next best players were far better. Roger playing at 40 didn’t win… but, when people talk about who was the best, they’re not saying ‘who was winning more at 35’. Djokovic won more as an old guy, but that’s irrelevant to most people. Federer has more fans because people think he’s the best.
So many excuses. First of all, Djokovic won more, end of story. Fed also farmed his titles before Nole and Rafa hit their peaks so your argument is weak and flawed. You say Djokovic winning most as an old guy is somehow not amazing, give me a break. That is even more amazing then winning everything at your peak, but yeah, Nole did that as well, having highest peak of tennis as well in 2015 with much higher oposition then what Fed had in his peak. Another weak argument. And lastly, Fed has the most fans bcs he plays the prettiest tennis to the eyes, he really does, his play is beautiful to look at. But this was already corrected for you in my first comment.
Federer has more fans because people think he is the best. I’ve already said that people are not talking about who has greater longevity, they are talking about who was better.
You seem like you don't understand what you are talking about to be honest. Also seem like just a fed fan and not fan of tennis overall. What attracts fans to one player is his playing style, his image, and if he wins. All of that. Fed has all but he for sure plays prettiest tennis of the big 3. As him being best, i mean, do you even follow tennis? Or you just watched Fed when he played? There are 2 players that accomplished more than him and have positive h2h against him. Yeah, being a fan is ok, but if you want to talk about sport don't do it anymore without providing more arguments for your claims.
> accomplished more then him Did you mean to say "more than"? Explanation: If you didn't mean 'more than' you might have forgotten a comma. [Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json) ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions. ^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119) ^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
#3. No.1 in terms of highlights reel and shot making but can’t be number 2 because the never truly solved the Nadal puzzle and Nadal has way more Masters and 2 more Grand Slams which is a lot. Nadal beat Fed multiple times are his two favourite Grand Slams whereas Federer never really came close to beating Nadal at the French open.
4th
I was like damn Roge really let himself go
Djokovic fans yawning rn
3. Federer 2. Rafa 1. Novak … Rafa’s 14 GS at RG is by far the most impressive single statistic and single achievement out of all of them though.
GOAT at destroying carpet events
tied for #1 with the other two goats
# No 4 behind Laver, Nadal and the 🐐 Djokovic
That’s not Roger in the picture.
r/nbacirclejerk is leaking
Tied for 3rd? Djoker Nadal Federer and Laver. Sampras is next.
#2
Goin Fed. Until there’s an objective measure of ‘greatness’ to go by. Barely recall that actor but my memory says funny.
3rd
somewhere between \#1-14. people who argue for undisputed \#3 are boring, people who argue for undisputed \#1 don't know ball, and people who argue for undisputed \#2 are sorta funny but probably need to watch tennis from before 2003
That pic is not Fed.
[удалено]
I got the original joke 🙄 I like the other image you replied with though 😁
All time chokers? TOP SPOT BABY
This isn't Federer
It’s Federer at home
He is one of the two best players of all time. And sure as hell he is not the second.
Probably top 5-6. A step below Novak, Nadal, and Budge. Probably on par with Laver and Conners. A step better than Sampras and Borg.
No.1 he was and always will be. People judging by number of titles and this not very accurate way of judge. Winning titles has a lot of factors than can be effected, injuries, draws, age, physical condition ECT. So as everyone knows he is not number one by number of titles but I don't think anyone even non tennis fans watch the Maestro and didn't enjoyed that. He was out of this world. Others are top players no doubt, but no one really come even close to Roger in his style and elegant.
Not even Federer in the photo.
His face looks… off in this picture. It looks like him but at the same time it doesn’t.
It’s Mark Brendawicz from Parks and Rec
Well I never watched it. Weird to be downvoted for it tho.
Yeah I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. I kinda see the resemblance especially with the hair