Will Novak pass Rafa?

[Nadalfan2013]

Consider who among 6+ winners does not have each:

WTF: Rafa, Wilander
Olympics: Everyone except Rafa and Agassi.

The point being, just about every great player has won the WTF while the vast majority did not win an Olympics.

I'm not saying that winning Olympics Gold is not desireable to players - clearly it is. But I don't think it has any bearing on greatness, other than as kind of "extra credit." So it adds to Rafa and Andy's resumes and qualifications, but it doesn't take away from Roger's, Novak's, Pete's, etc.

When Roger & Novak played it was a huge deal, as big as a slam, by far bigger than wtf. Obviously I’m not using the Olympics against past generations like McEnroe or whoever. But when comparing the Big 3 to each others it’s a huge deal.

 

[DarthFed]

No one would rate it anywhere near a major in terms of importance. Most players including Big 3 would rather have 1 Gold than 1 YEC but Roger and Djokovic are the two best players in YEC history, the 5th biggest tournament of the calendar year. They wouldn't trade all that success for 1 Gold. Also, Rafa's lack of YEC is a surface gap, he simply can't play well to date indoors when he doesn't get a crazy high bounce with his topspin and his defensive play suffers. Roger and Nole not winning Olympics is no surface gap as those tournaments have come on hard courts and grass.

 

[Moxie]

Safin and Nalbandian are of the same generation as Federer. I'm talking about Rafa, Novak, Andy, del Potro, Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic, etc - a much stronger generation than the equivalent group for Rafa and Novak: Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Goffin, Tomic, Thiem, etc.

This doesn't make sense to me. You're acting as if they didn't all play those guys. Roger is still in the game. I know you like to group players, but they've all been playing at the same time, those you mention, and they're all active. I don't see how Murray, del Potro, Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic haven't been solid competition for Nadal and Djoker. I'm also killing myself laughing that you thought to bring in Tomic. You must have got your Aussies mixed up and meant Kyrgios.

 

[El Dude]

Again, it is a nice bonus and a great accomplishment, but due to its unique nature (such as being held only once every four years) it can only be considered adding to, not subtracting from, a resume.

On a match per match basis, the WTF is the hardest tournament of the year. In no other tournament do you face an elite opponent in every match. It is the year-end contest that sometimes determines #1. Now I wouldn't say Rafa can't be GOAT without winning won, but that it is a significant factor.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

No one would rate it anywhere near a major in terms of importance. Most players including Big 3 would rather have 1 Gold than 1 YEC but Roger and Djokovic are the two best players in YEC history, the 5th biggest tournament of the calendar year. They wouldn't trade all that success for 1 Gold. Also, Rafa's lack of YEC is a surface gap, he simply can't play well to date indoors when he doesn't get a crazy high bounce with his topspin and his defensive play suffers. Roger and Nole not winning Olympics is no surface gap as those tournaments have come on hard courts and grass.

He still made the final 2 times. Look you are obviously focusing on diminishing Rafa’s greatness so carry on but he will keep winning and eventually prove he’s the GOAT. Good night.

 

[El Dude]

This doesn't make sense to me. You're acting as if they didn't all play those guys. Roger is still in the game. I know you like to group players, but they've all been playing at the same time, those you mention, and they're all active. I don't see how Murray, del Potro, Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic haven't been solid competition for Nadal and Djoker. I'm also killing myself laughing that you thought to bring in Tomic.

Again, you're missing the point I'm making, which follows from what monfed said about Rafa and Novak being on Roger's heels (or however he put it). The point is that Roger had two other mega-stars on his heels, 5-6 years younger, in their prime as he was aging. Rafa and Novak haven't had to deal with that. The best players they've had to face were either peers (each other, Andy, Stan, etc), or older(er). They simply haven't been challenged by any young upstarts, or at least nowhere near to the extent that Roger was.

And age matters. If you're 32 and the best 27 year old is Rafa Nadal, that matters. You're aging and the best in-prime players is one of the greatest of all time. If you're 32 and the best 27 year old is Dimitrov, that is quite a difference.

I mentioned Tomic as a way of illustrating how weak "Lost Gen" is. You don't have to go far down the "Lost Gen Rankings" to come to a scrub like Tomic.

 

[Moxie]

Again, you're missing the point I'm making, which follows from what monfed said about Rafa and Novak being on Roger's heels (or however he put it). The point is that Roger had two other mega-stars on his heels, 5-6 years younger, in their prime as he was aging. Rafa and Novak haven't had to deal with that. The best players they've had to face were either peers (each other, Andy, Stan, etc), or older(er). They simply haven't been challenged by any young upstarts, or at least nowhere near to the extent that Roger was.

And age matters. If you're 32 and the best 27 year old is Rafa Nadal, that matters. You're aging and the best in-prime players is one of the greatest of all time. If you're 32 and the best 27 year old is Dimitrov, that is quite a difference.

I mentioned Tomic as a way of illustrating how weak "Lost Gen" is. You don't have to go far down the "Lost Gen Rankings" to come to a scrub like Tomic.

I still think you're stretching the generational point. Roger was also not doing so well against a 17-year-old Nadal, or 19-year old one. Or a 20-year-old Djoker at AO in 2008. When you say the best 27-year old is Dimitrov, you omit that, and the thing we've been talking about, in terms of age and generation, is that Wawrinka became a problem. Who would have expected that? They're all still playing the same guys. And rather than Tomic, I think you should have added Kyrgios.

 

[El Dude]

I still think you're stretching the generational point. Roger was also not doing so well against a 17-year-old Nadal, or 19-year old one. Or a 20-year-old Djoker at AO in 2008. When you say the best 27-year old is Dimitrov, you omit that, and the thing we've been talking about, in terms of age and generation, is that Wawrinka became a problem. Who would have expected that? They're all still playing the same guys. And rather than Tomic, I think you should have added Kyrgios.

Moxie, you're squirming around to evade the point. Do you agree or disagree that Roger has had a harder group of young players to deal with than Rafa and Novak have? To me it is inarguable. It isn't the only factor at play, but is an important one.

Kyrgios is three years younger than Tomic, so more in the Next Gen group.

 

[DarthFed]

I still think you're stretching the generational point. Roger was also not doing so well against a 17-year-old Nadal, or 19-year old one. Or a 20-year-old Djoker at AO in 2008. When you say the best 27-year old is Dimitrov, you omit that, and the thing we've been talking about, in terms of age and generation, is that Wawrinka became a problem. Who would have expected that? They're all still playing the same guys. And rather than Tomic, I think you should have added Kyrgios.

I don't know if you're purposely being this dense. You and others naturally complain that Nadal and Djokovic in late teens and early 20's had it tougher than Roger at the same age mainly because they were up against prime Roger. I'd say El Dude stated the obvious here. When Roger was at an advanced age (30+) you had Nadal and Djokovic in their primes and Murray too if you want to include him. When Nadal and Djokovic hit a similar advanced age you had a generation of scrubs in their primes. The fact is there hasn't been a promising young player since DP and well we know what happened there. I'm not saying none of the current next gen guys won't ever become great but as of now they clearly aren't there yet

 

[El Dude]

@Moxie , here is the relevant quote from @monfed that was replying to and elaborating on:

[Roger] hasn't aged poorly. He had dull and faker chasing him relentlessly, plus surface slowdown plus bad luck(USO 14). Nobody is chasing dull or faker so they're vulturing slams easily and surface slowdown only benefits them.

First of all, I disagreed about the vulturing part, or at least pointed out that Roger had his "easy" Slams too...you took no issue with that, obviously .

But then I elaborated on the "chasing" part - which I think is clearly true. Roger had not only Nadal and Djokovic, but Murray who is a lesser great in his own right. There are no players of that caliber -- or even close to it -- of a similar relative age to Rafa and Novak. Any possible future greats are 10+ years younger, and presumably not yet in their prime forms.

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie , here is the relevant quote from @monfed that was replying to and elaborating on:

[Roger] hasn't aged poorly. He had dull and faker chasing him relentlessly, plus surface slowdown plus bad luck(USO 14). Nobody is chasing dull or faker so they're vulturing slams easily and surface slowdown only benefits them.

First of all, I disagreed about the vulturing part, or at least pointed out that Roger had his "easy" Slams too...you took no issue with that, obviously .

But then I elaborated on the "chasing" part - which I think is clearly true. Roger had not only Nadal and Djokovic, but Murray who is a lesser great in his own right. There are no players of that caliber -- or even close to it -- of a similar relative age to Rafa and Novak. Any possible future greats are 10+ years younger, and presumably not yet in their prime forms.

Wow, it makes me very sad that you're resorting to quoting monfed. I "took no issue" with him, because I ignore him. I understand why you say that Roger had 2 tough players right behind him, whereas Rafa and Nole didn't have the same ones right behind them. But it's not like Roger isn't still playing. And it does kind of ignore the fact that Roger didn't have anything like that competition before they came up, when he was hoovering up weeks at #1 and majors, too. I think it has evened out. EDIT: I do see that you acknowledged that Roger had some easy years.

 

[El Dude]

Wow, it makes me very sad that you're resorting to quoting monfed. I "took no issue" with him, because I ignore him. I understand why you say that Roger had 2 tough players right behind him, whereas Rafa and Nole didn't have the same ones right behind them. But it's not like Roger isn't still playing. And it does kind of ignore the fact that Roger didn't have anything like that competition before they came up, when he was hoovering up weeks at #1 and majors, too. I think it has evened out.

FFS, Moxie, I wasn't "resorting to quoting monfed" - I was quoting him to provide context -- that is, what I was iniitially replying to. Are you really resorting to that sort of mis-directing tactic?

Anyhow, the point stands on its own and is obvious. It doesn't mean there aren't other factors - there are - but this one is part of the picture. As I've said, there are ways in which Roger had it easier and, in the end, it probably all evens out in terms of overall career accomplishments.

 

[Moxie]

FFS, Moxie, I wasn't "resorting to quoting monfed" - I was quoting him to provide context -- that is, what I was iniitially replying to. Are you really resorting to that sort of mis-directing tactic?

Anyhow, the point stands on its own and is obvious. It doesn't mean there aren't other factors - there are - but this one is part of the picture. As I've said, there are ways in which Roger had it easier and, in the end, it probably all evens out in terms of overall career accomplishments.

Actually, that's what I said. So I guess we agree.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think this is short-sighted, though. Yes, for now, it's about what the Big 3 are doing, and everyone else just flails about. But, at the risk of stating the obvious, they get older, and the youngsters round into form. I do not think that there is a Federer/Nadal/Djokovic amongst them, but the risk of upset becomes greater, and it will get harder to win Majors...and I think pretty soon. You mentioned, whether on this thread, or another, that it's a joke to talk about draws w/re: to Nadal at RG, as it has been to talk about the draws of the Big Boys in most tournaments, especially Majors, for a long time now. Upsets have been pretty rare, and at least one of them usually prevails. It has been kind of a ridiculous to complain about draws, when we basically knew where the SFs/Fs would land. I think that's what is about to change. Not that there's a plethora of world-beaters in the wings, but that there is a rising tide of better players, with big ambitions and less fear of the big guys. I'm not saying one player is going to take over the ATP...just that upset is going to be more possible.

I mean yeah at one point this is bound to be true, but short sighted? lt's been about the big 3 since literally 2008. So excuse me for being short sighted over the past 11 years.

 

[brokenshoelace]

That said, I do agree with you that in one way Roger has had it harder in that he's had two similarly great younger players on his heels, while Rafa and Novak have had...del Potro? Cilic? Dimitrov?!

They've had each other...and Murray. Rafa and Novak aren't one player (though that would be one hell of a player).

Oh and they've had Roger himself. While not exactly younger I heard he's sort of good.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

It's easy to get your judgement clouded after the recent clay euphoria but Djokovic is still poised well to overtake both Nadal and Federer.

 

[atttomole]

Every player of the big 3 will tell you that Olympics > WTF yet you have no problem using the WTF against Rafa. And you talk about being objective. Lol

You can’t be serious about that. You want to compare a tournament that comes every 4 years to an annual tournament. The WTF is definitely more important than the Olympics. However, I am happy if Roger wins the Olympics too, as icing on the cake.

 

[atttomole]

There another issue being ignored here;the changing of surface playing conditions. The US Open has slowed down significantly and that has helped Djokovic and Nadal more. This is in addition to Wimbledon, even though Wimbledon was changed earlier.

 

[monfed]

The competition argument turned quickly on its face. I didn't like it when Nadal and Djokovic fans tried to use that card and I don't care for it now with Federer. Bottom line is all 3 of those guys made a lot of the recent situation which is undeniably a pretty weak field that has progressively gotten worse. Roger's problem will end up being that prolonged weak period of play with 1 major in 7 years. That's what may end up costing the legacy.

Nobody is chasing faker and dull relentlessly in their post prime period. Not GOAT candidates anyway.There is the odd Istomin type defeat for them but that's something they can afford. OTOH a post-prime Fed had to deal with peak Nadal and peak faker.

dulltards like El Dull make false equivalences like AO 06 where Fed played Haas and Davydenko in the previous rounds so he did pass the draw test. AO 07? Fed was in god mode, nobody was stopping him in that tournament nor was he going to drop a set to anyone.

Stop acting like a know it all when you know nothing, Jon Snow.

 

[DarthFed]

Nobody is chasing faker and dull relentlessly in their post prime period. Not GOAT candidates anyway.There is the odd Istomin type defeat for them but that's something they can afford. OTOH a post-prime Fed had to deal with peak Nadal and peak faker.

dulltards like El Dull make false equivalences like AO 06 where Fed played Haas and Davydenko in the previous rounds so he did pass the draw test. AO 07? Fed was in god mode, nobody was stopping him in that tournament nor was he going to drop a set to anyone.

Stop acting like a know it all when you know nothing, Jon Snow.

Oh I do agree that those guys had it way easier in the post-prime period but the Nad and Djokovic fans will cry that Roger had it easier in his early 20's. And in regards to that period I mentioned (post AO 2010 - pre AO 2017 Federer lost at 24 majors and 9 to Djokovic including 2010 USO (when Djoker still wasn't great) and 3 to Nadal with 2 being off clay (weak losses in Australia) 12 of those were to much weaker players. He dropped the ball a lot in that period.