boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
I said hold 4 at once though. He won't do that twice this weekend.Won both at least twice. Federer only has one French and Nadal one Aus.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
I said hold 4 at once though. He won't do that twice this weekend.Won both at least twice. Federer only has one French and Nadal one Aus.
It's not exactly one sided to Federer outside of clay though. It's pretty close from memory.Nadal is the better player on Clay surface. Outside of that its Federer. Most of the H2H wins have been on Clay where I'd assume Nadal owns most players.
If you split it like that then it’s in thirds. Fed grass and Djokovic hard courts. Federer has had similar one sided dominance on grass.Nadal is the better player on Clay surface. Outside of that its Federer. Most of the H2H wins have been on Clay where I'd assume Nadal owns most players.
Stefo has beaten Nadal and Federer at the Aus Open.The French open is a Grand Slam, entirely different context pressure and tennis. You have to be able to play 5 sets to beat Novak. Stefanos can’t do that.
Not true, Nadal's slam wins are 65% the French Open, it's by far the biggest percentage at one event of the big 3. The others have been more rounded whereas Nadal is a surface specialist compared to the other two in comparison.If you split it like that then it’s in thirds. Fed grass and Djokovic hard courts. Federer has had similar one sided dominance on grass.
Looking simply at Grand slam title count is wrong I think. When Sampras got to 14 grand slams were, people saying he was the GOAT? Not many were. I think it comes down to a combination of slam titles, record across the 4 slams, weeks at #1, matters titles, record against your main rivals. Claims could be made for all three of them, plus Laver.
Of course anything is possible, Novak is the most unpredictable of the big 3...but in a way has also been the most consistent.Stefo has beaten Nadal and Federer at the Aus Open.
If Novak has a downer after last night, and if Stefo is ready, then Stefo can win. The last time Novak beat Nadal at the French, he did not win the title. He had a downer in the final and Stan beat him.
Fair enough, I get the argument...it’s valid. I would contend though, that clay is the most ubiquitous of surfaces and the most played on around the world. It is as such more contested.Not true, Nadal's slam wins are 65% the French Open, it's by far the biggest percentage at one event of the big 3. The others have been more rounded whereas Nadal is a surface specialist compared to the other two in comparison.
This is one of those arguments where 1/2/3 order you could mount some sort of case for each, and there might still be some more to play out over the next couple yearsFair enough, I get the argument...it’s valid. I would contend though, that clay is the most ubiquitous of surfaces and the most played on around the world. It is as such more contested.
I think also you need to look at the opponents. Nadal and Djokovic played in a tougher era, they had each other to beat as well as Federer, Stan, Del Porto, Murray...all players with no real weaknesses. Federer has spanned eras but had a much easier run at it early days when he piled on the grand slams. If the number two in the world is Andy Roddick, or a Safin that played a handful of tournaments a year that’s not comparable in terms of quality.
Amusingly a lot of Federer fans only looked at outside of total Grand Slams when it became apparent he was being run down. Prior to that it was the only criteria they cited.Djokovic will end up with the most slams
Most weeks at No 1
Most season end no 1s.
Djokovic is going down as the GOAT.
Looking simply at Grand slam title count is wrong I think. When Sampras got to 14 grand slams were, people saying he was the GOAT? Not many were. I think it comes down to a combination of slam titles, record across the 4 slams, weeks at #1, matters titles, record against your main rivals. Claims could be made for all three of them, plus Laver.
Slam tallies only really became a major deal very recently, it didn’t feel as big a deal as YE#1s as a kid when Sampras won 6 straight. Sampras chasing down Emerson and Fed chasing down Sampras were big news, but it wasn’t until Nadal approached Sampras too and looked a chance at catching Fed, with Novak also amassing and Serena approaching 20, that it started to become a media craze.
At the 2013 USO Nadal won his 13th and Serena her 17th. I feel like that might have been a tipping point in hindsight. To have a handful of players in that ATG space shifted the conversation of the sport a little bit, especially come Novak’s mid 10s when he went 6 from 8. As a kid, if you told me someone won 3 slams, 2 gold, a YE#1 and unlikely Davis Cup (Murray), that would’ve sounded spectacular to me.
Then Novak owns it. Why the counter argument.Looking simply at Grand slam title count is wrong I think. When Sampras got to 14 grand slams were, people saying he was the GOAT? Not many were. I think it comes down to a combination of slam titles, record across the 4 slams, weeks at #1, matters titles, record against your main rivals. Claims could be made for all three of them, plus Laver.
I want them all to finish on 20.How do non-Novak fans feel about him potentially achieving GOAT status?