ATP Tennis/Non-India Davis Cup

[VReddy]

Subjectively, Federer at his peak played at a level that appears higher (relative to the rest of the contemporary field) than either Nadal or Djokovic. That is, he was better than his peers by a bigger gap than the others at their respective peaks.

I think its important to qualitate that Federer`s early domination was aided by considerable lower quality of contemporaries.

Djokovic won his 2nd grand slam in 2011. By that stage, Federer reached 22 Grand Slam finals and pocketed 15 titles.

A quick look at the quality of opponents in those finals for you before Djokovic came onto the scene

1. Philippoussis (1)
2. Safin (1)
3. Roddick (4)
4. Hewitt (1)
5. Agassi (1) - close to retirement though
6. Baghdatis (1)
7. Nadal (7)
8. Gonzalez (1)
9. Djokovic (1)
10. Murray (2)
11. Soderling (1)
12. Del Potro (1)

The class opponents - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and possibly Del Potro - he faced them all from mid-2006 and onwards.

I think we all agree that the likes of Philippousis, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis and so on.. Difficult to compare across generations but that they would not even be on par with the 2nd rung of talent in world tennis today.

So Federer dominating that phase to win 7-10 titles before a Nadal came onto the scene - Its no way less but important to factor that in.

And further breakout of that dominance of Federer from pre-Djokovic era (before 2011). 22 Grand Slam finals and the win loss record

Vs Nadal / Djokovic / Del Potro: 3/9
Vs rest 13/13

Frankly given the high IQ of this forum, its a bit of travesty that we are even putting Federer in the same league as Djokovic if we are purely focused on the Tennis aspects. I guess that shows why we have AAPTards, Bhakts, Congresstard (?) in political spheres - no matter how far we go, having strong bias is just part of human nature.

[jai_in_canada]

011).

If you want to use dominance over peers as a criterion, then Esther Vergeer is the hands down GOAT - not Serena Williams or Roger Federer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Vergeer

I didn’t bother looking because I think you made this point before. It’s the wheelchair lady, right? Ok. It’s fine. As you said earlier, this is a topic that rises after every few months and there’s no perfect answer to that. I didn’t include Esther in my mix.

Wow, great memory. I have indeed made this point before to try and argue that dominance over peers in and of itself may not be a good criterion to assess GOAThood. But then what are?

As I said earlier, any debate about who is GOAT invariably ends up being a debate about criteria. Whose criteria are better, more logical, more rational, more objective, more complete, more accurate, more balanced or more knowledgeable?

Does it really matter whom each one considers the greatest or why? Can't each of us have their own favorite? Does tennis have to be monotheistic?

Stil I have enjoyed everyone's perspective. I sense that there is a broad consensus emerging here (and elsewhere) about which tennis player is most admired, and whose accomplishments qualify him for the GOAT crown. In fact, it is gratifying to see that certain tennis players are now being discussed as being the greatest athletes on the planet across all sports, which I don't recall happening in earlier era. Certainly a Golden Era in tennis. Even if people might have different opinions on who is GOAT, I don't think there would much debate that we have been witnessing the greatest era in tennis history. Or would there? I don't want to open up yet another can of worms.

[PKBasu]

Federer is 5 years older than Nadal, and 6 years older than Djokovic. That he is still competitive against them is what is remarkable. His opponents in the early part of his career seem to be of a poorer quality -- but that was partly because Federer made them appear inferior. Roddick and Safin would have won many more Slams had they not been Federer's contemporaries, and perhaps so would Cilic. The one advantage both Nadal and Djokovic have in terms of numbers is that they started winning Slams at a younger age. But during Federer's 5-year peak, he had far greater dominance over the field (except at the French Open where Nadal already ruled) than Nadal or Djokovic ever established.

[prasen9]

I think while the logic may tend to be circular, there is a way out because players do not exactly match each other by years. So, a player's performance against a previous generation is representative of how they are. So, did the opponents of Federer did not win because of Federer being great or because they were not that good? Usually, it is a mixture of both but which one is greater? The Sampras era ended in 2002 more or less. There was really no other great player who was bothering Sampras who was left to challenge Federer. Agassi was almost gone by 2003. Federer is the greatest of all time on grass.

[jai_in_canada]

Even Andy Murray (and that’s not an Indian “even”) has got into the GOAT commentary. As he says, each of them has a different claim… but let’s hold the debate until all of them are done with their careers. Meanwhile, just enjoy their tennis.

https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/n ... goat-race/

[VReddy]

Federer is the greatest of all time on grass.

Agree but not by a big margin as of now. It will depend on how things pan out over the next 2-3 years. Current stats

Win %: Federer 89%, Djokovic 88%
Grandslam titles: Federer 8, Djokovic 5

Federer won 6 of those 8 titles before Djokovic emerged on the scene.

[PKBasu]

"Federer won 6 of those 8 titles before Djokovic emerged on the scene", you say.
What is your point? The fact that Djokovic had not yet "emerged on the scene" somehow diminishes Federer's earlier Wimbledon titles?? In 2009, when I saw them both play on the Wimbledon centre court (day 1, Djoker won a 5-setter against Benneteau, Federer a 3-setter against Yen-Hsun Lu) Djokovic had already won the 2008 Australian Open. So he had emerged on the scene. Federer won his 6th Wimbledon title that year, beating Roddick in the final.

[VReddy]

It does not diminish. But he is not the greatest of all time on grass by a big margin... say like Nadal on Clay. Its a close battle which Federer is leading on Grass (89% to 88%, 8 to 5). Whereas on Clay, Nadal is the undisputed king vs Djokovic / others (97% to 84%, 13 to 2).

[prasen9]

If we are talking about greatest on grass, I would bring Sampras into the picture too.

[Sanjay]

I think Djokovic is the GOAT. Leaves Fed behind now.
He can with the Grand Slam and if he wins the Olympics, he can make it a Golden Slam.

[PKBasu]

On clay, Nadal is the GOAT, and his closest competitor is Vilas, not one of the contemporaries. Borg didn’t have longevity, which diminishes his stature, otherwise he too would be in the conversation.

[jai_in_canada]

Nadal has pulled out of Wimbledon and the Tokyo Olympics. Can’t say that I am surprised. Looks like he figured the risk to reward ratio was too high. The tour schedule is all a bowl of tangled cold spaghetti. Indian Wells is in the Fall, after the USO, if I’m not mistaken.

This year’s Wimbledon is more open than it has been in years. Will a NextGen take the opportunity? Or will Djokovic and Federer hold the fort for the old guard?

[Atithee]

Djokovic all the way at Wimbledon.

[jai_in_canada]

So who do we think will go deep at this year's Wimbledon? Tsitsipas? Berretini? Medvedev? Auger Alliasime? Shapovalov? Rublev? Korda?

[PKBasu]

Some cracker R1 match-ups, with WC-Jack Draper (who beat Sinner and Bublik at Queen's last week) taking on Djokovic today, Federer facing Mannarino (who he's never lost to, but with Mannarino coming off a singles SF at Mallorca on grass last week, anything is possible). I suspect the Futures-level player Draper will be blown off, but Federer-Mannarino could be a closer match. I remember them playing twice at Wimbledon, and once at the USO R3 (in a year when Federer looked great until that match but was then shocked soon afterwards). There's also Dimitrov-Verdasco, Humbert-Kyrgios as other terrific R1 match-ups.