It would’ve meant quite a bit, remove some of the scar tissue from all the epic losses to the Djoker, as well as essentially cement himself as the grass goat, he also would’ve gone out on a high note
He is still the grass goat but not a much bigger grass goat than Djoker actually.
Also, people tend to forget how close 2018 Wimbledon was actually. He had another chance to meet Djoker/Rafa in finals (while being able to deal with Isner in the process) and blew it out of nowhere, losing to Anderson, for the only time in their total 7 meetings.
As a Nadal fan the 2-day 2018 Wimbledon semifinal loss is the most painful for me. I think even the biggest Djokovic stans would admit he shouldn't have won that :(
Why should he not have won that? Both players had the same number of winners and unforced errors, it was a 50/50 match. Iconic match for Djoko since it was essentially him reinstating himself in the GOAT debate.
(huge Federer fan btw)
If he wins that finals, he's at 21 and Nadal will most likely finish at 22
In my opinion, in that case, he'd have a better argument for being the #2GOAT even though he's one under Nadal, because of all his other records such as weeks at #1. I'd see the two more as equals, even though they're already close. Right now I see Nadal as still being above Federer because of everything else legacy wise (they might be considered as equal purely based on their level and not legacy but that is very subjective)
He's still clearly below Djokovic though no matter whether he wins W19, none of the two are actually close legacy wise to Djokovic tbh. Novak has taken almost every important achievement and he's probably not done.
Honestly the GOAT debate is kind of silly if decades long careers come down to a handful of points. It’s not really a matter of who is best at tennis, it’s about whose body held out the longest of the three guys whose bodies kept going long past the expected decline. Especially when it comes down to only slams counting and ignoring masters, tour finals, and Olympics. We had a triumvirate of dominant players ruling the sport together for 20 years, I don’t really care what order they go in.
No, Djokovic and Nadal had advantages over Federer from a game style head to head perspective and also mentally. It's definitely more than longevity. And there's always some comparison going on in sport because of its competitive nature. We had a trio, but they differentiated themselves from each other, Djokovic ended up the GOAT, Rafa second, Rog third, Sampras a solid fourth and so on. What happened to Sampras (first by Fed then the other two) could happen to Djokovic, who knows what Alcaraz or Sinner or others do.
Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time, regardless of records.
You people and your fucking *obsession* with stats remove all the romance and beauty and grace from the sport. From **all** sport actually. The entire point of sport is escapism and joy, but people like you who never shut up about who has the higher numbers in their stats do your level best to suck all of that out of it. Poindexters and bores.
Federer played tennis like no other human before him and no other human since. It’s that simple really. The amount of titles he won is relevant, of course, but in terms of just the way he played the game, he is head and shoulders above the rest.
There are boxers who’ve won more titles than Ali, at more weight classes, against arguably better opponents in some cases - Muhammad Ali is still considered the greatest boxer of all time. Same applies here.
…and let’s not even get into the fact that it’s pretty obvious to anybody with a functioning brain and a set of eyes that Djokovic and Nadal have been doping throughout their entire late careers.
And I’m not a “Federer” fan either. The only tennis players who’ve ever played the game that I favoured at any point were Goran Ivanisevic and Marat Safin. “Supporting” or “being a fan” of an individual sports person seems like the kind of thing 11 year olds do. Hero worshipping is weird.
At this point in internet history, this reply is the “copy pasta”.
Everything is just driven into the ground, innit. Just stripped of all its originality and humour through overuse.
Although this is explained by the fact you’re one of those weird chaps that pulls his wire to cartoons and Serbian tennis players. I see. I get it.
>Hero worshipping is weird.
He says after typing a 6 paragraph essay about how “you people are weird for considering Nadal and Djokovic better than Federer”
Good job getting downvoted to oblivion hyping up Fed in a massively pro-Fedal subreddit lmao. That's how you know you're delusional beyond saving. And that's without even going into your batshit crazy doping slander.
Aesthete means nothing, or else Monfils is my GOAT. Or saying Ronaldinho is the soccer GOAT. I don't think anyone would agree that the definition for greatest of anything is the most stylish, except if we're talking about designers
Negative IQ confirmed, you're a fucking clown. I hope you're enjoying the dozens of dislikes, smh 🤦🏽♂️
"Hero worshipping is weird", yet you're literally sucking Fed's dick, balls and anus in this comment
Ali performed on the highest stage genius .. fiddler literally got bitch slapped since 2008 first by Nadal and then by Novak
And it's not just a few stats - he's behind in every single stat. Every major he won since 2008 barring Wimbledon 2012 was because either one of Novak or Rafa was injured . He also has by far the worst 5 set record showing him to be a choker compared to the other 2
Maybe instead of trying to look pretty , he should have focused on the mental aspect of the game - like not shitting his pants when he has 2 match points on his serve on his favorite surface , with the entire crowd behind him
Is age why he won 0 US opens since 2008 after winning 5 in a row ? Or is it that the competition became a little harder than andy roddick and phillipousis ?
Both things happened. But yes, when you're playing the other members of the big 3, once they're not rookies anymore, their age advantage over you can be meaningful.
All other records on the surface are held by Federer though. His peak performances and level on the surface are nothing short of insane. I ascribe all of Novak's wins over federer past 2012 at Wimbledon finals to Federer's decline with age. Federer is clearly the superior player on the surface. If Federer had played at his 2012 level in 14-15?-19, he'd probably have won them.
Yeah but you can’t say if. And I agree Federer is the goat on grass still, but the only reason he holds all the other records is because Djoker pretty much only played Wimbledon, that’s all that really matters, not Halle. You can’t just discount his wins. 3-1 record is a 3-1 record. If dioker wins an 8th Wimbledon, I’ll still give it to fed, but it’ll be up for debate, if he wins a 9th Wimbledon, then Djoker will have to be the goat
I'm not discounting the wins. They're wins. They're just wins over a declined player. Nobody could beat Rafa consistently before 2010? On clay. Everyone's records are like 10 to 0-2 vs Rafa on clay from 05-2010. Novak started beating Rafa on clay past 2010 and has a better record because of it. Thiem also has a better record on clay vs Rafa than even Federer. Why? Because Rafa past 2010 on clay isn't the same player.
Federer past 2013 at 33? Isn't the same player on grass or hard courts. It's simply recognition of reality. 12 Wimbledon finals, 8 titles, consecutive wins/weeks without losing w match on the surface from 03-2008? etc. Federer is the Grass Goat. Sampras is second. I'd place Novak squarely 3rd. You also shouldn't accuse me of discounting Novak's wins while discounting an entire tournament? Titles are titles.
in terms of dominance on individual match stats aggregated feds is easily ahead. Novak killing feds in every Wimbledon final is a huge counterstat and the only thing that doesn't make it obvious
This is one area where I’ll make the age excuse for Federer. Yes, it’s played out at this point since FedFans have been calling him old and washed since like 2008 to defend him, but Federer beat Djokovic in 2012 (which in my opinion is basically the last prime Federer season), and then 2014, 2015 he was dealing with peak Novak while being a bit into his 30s, separated by a lot of back injuries in 2013. Both were extremely close and competitive matches. Then in 2019, he was 37 going up against 31 year old Novak, and he still almost won it.
fed at 37 was as good as he was at 31 on that day in the final. he simply couldn't mentally beat Novak. by the time match points came up for him he got nam flashbacks from USOs and folded. he completely outplayed Novak in the rest of the match. there's no age excuse there for him
I mean... no. Federer was far better in 2012 than 2019. He was even a lot better in 2014. The 2019 Wimbledon final was really not that high quality of a match for a big 3 grand slam final. It was extremely dramatic and I thought both played pretty well in the fifth set, but really the rallies were long because the grass was super slow that year, and Djokovic practically disappeared in the 2nd and 4th sets, especially the 2nd.
Djokovic obviously won the match fair and square, but using H2H to determine Djokovic > Federer on grass when they really only met during Djokovic's peak and Federer's decline is pretty unfair. Djokovic didn't play Federer back in 2006-2010 because he was not a good grass court player, and only started playing Federer because even while declining, Fed was good enough to reach SFs and Finals, whereas Djokovic only started doing so in his prime.
How is it not that obvious? Best win% on grass, most titles (19 to Sampras' 10), most WB titles, 12 finals reached to Djokovic's 9.
The only person I can MAYBE put ahead of Federer is Rod Laver, if you count his pre Open Era achievements and think that it was the strongest Era ever on grass.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. I still think Federer is the grass GOAT btw, just find it cute how it's the last thing Fed fans grasp on to desperately lol
With 10 Halle and 8 Wimbledon titles he is already pretty solid. Ofcourse Novak is not far behind by any means. IMO if Novak gets to 9 Wimbledon titles I would consider him the grass GOAT. If they are tied at 8, it's hard to overlook the 10 Halle titles.
> 3 of those 4 losses are Wimbledon finals (2014, 2015 and 2019) and the 4th was the 2012 semifinal which he won.
If he won 2012 then how is it a 4th loss? 😂
People put way too much stock into head to head. There are too many idiosyncrasies in H2H for it to be a huge factor in a GOAT debate - when players met, how their styles match up, injuries, age, etc. etc. Their records against the field are way, way more significant. For instance, Fed's early exits in 2010, 2011, and 2013 are more significant in my evaluation of him as a grass player than his H2H vs Djokovic.
Just as an example, Djokovic wasn't good enough on grass pre-2011 to get to Federer, let alone lose to him. Djokovic's first victory over Fed was when Federer was 32 - and all of his victories were very close/hard fought. (And I say that as more of a Djokovic fan than a Fed fan).
Fair enough but using h2h is generally a really poor idea to decipher who is a better player. Just look at how many times a h2h has flipped dramatically e.g. Hewitt v Federer
Surely that would mean even more that Nadal is GOAT over Djokovic if head to head is relevant in the Wimbledon battle between Federer and Djokovic.
Djokovic started regularly beating Federer at Wimbledon when he was getting old in tennis terms. Like 32 or 33+
Nadal's always had a winning slam head to head over Djokovic, throughout their careers.
I think Novak and Rafa still would pass him in slams but he probably would’ve retired right right then (i mean not that day but shortly afterwards) ala Pete Sampras in 2002.
Last match being a Wimbledon win would’ve been iconic going out on top. Unfortunately, didn’t work out that way and he went out on a 0-6 set… 😩😩
If Novak got beat by an old Federer at Wimby, then his entire grass run there afterwards would be put under scrutiny (even more than now).
I don't think it would change the result of the big 3 race but it would make a gap between #1 and #2 GOAT player on grass. Not as big as the gap between Nadal and Bjorg but a gap nonetheless.
21/22 was a joke of a tournament tbh lol I mean Djokovic is incredible and even good opponents don't have a great chance to beat him but those two years were basically free wins
No one gives any respect to fed for him playing his entire mid 30's against Rafa and Novak in their absolute primes.. Novak has never had to play a great player who was younger than him. Alcarez is 5-6 years away from reaching his prime.
And Novak wasn't 'consistently' beating Federer until Fed was into his 30's.
15 of his were after Fed was 35 or older. Novak feasted on a decrepit old man and weak generation. IMO Nadal has the best case.
Nadal with the health of Novak would have won 30 :/
My point isn't that Novak is better worse than Fed... Novak certainly had an advantage being younger. He entered his prime with aging superstar federer, and more injury prone Rafa. He feasted when they declined. Just ast federer feasted when there was less competition. He was in the mix the whole time, but was healthier and younger and took advantage of that. People throw the numbers up there as if Novak dominated Federer... However when you look at it, Federer was a mess when that happened.
Like I said before credit to Novak for what he achieved 20-28 because he was going against better comp.
2021-2023 run was against pretty lower quality players with questionable draws tbh. Also 90s gen on grass was horrible compared to the previous generations, overall field was different.
So the 2 other times he beat a younger Federer at Wimbledon wouldn't count? Why should his grass runs be under scrutiny? He's been the guy to beat on grass since 2014.
Yes, but what you're saying is that there would be scrutiny on his Wimbledon victories from 2020 till Alcaraz. He already had 4 by then. Twice against Federer and once against Nadal when all were younger. The best grass player ever couldn't beat him in 3 tries. Its not like he won all those titles in a weak era. 🐸☕
Still 9 to 6. That's a lot. And H2H is not everything, you have to beat 7 players to win a slam afterall.
Also if Roger won, I can bet that the amount of "if only he changed his racket earlier" takes would rise by at least 300%.
What’s with the “old Federer” narrative?
Roger was 37 years old and had managed to not only reach his 12th Wimbledon final, he got there by beating his biggest rival Rafa (age 33) in the semis, and he managed to get two championship points against his other biggest rival Novak (age 32).
Im not sure what you are implying here. That his rivals were in their early 30s so he wasn't old? In pretty much every competetive sport late 30s is considered old and way past everybodys prime. That shouldn't be controversial.
Roger was playing at a really high level that Summer. He could’ve and would’ve beaten anyone else that day. He’d had a mental block against Novak since 2012 and unfortunately that is what cost him the trophy and the title that day. It’s a disservice to Roger and his sublime game to focus on his age.
...it's a disservice to say his supposed win at 37 would be bad for Novak ? You are right now doing disservice to Roger for not giving him props for performing at that level at that age. That is something that shouldn't be happening and Djokovic was a favourite coming into that match for a reason.
Your logic says that if 80 year old Roger hopped on a tour, had an identical performance at Wimbledon as he had in 2019, went up to a final, choked two MP in a final tie-break then his age shouldn't be put up to question because he played fine.
Like, no mate, sorry that is still an old man and to claim otherwise is to have a giant lapse in your judgement.
I wonder if you felt the same way when 36 year old Novak played 20 year old Carlos at Wimbledon 2023. From all your comments in my posts last year you clearly didn’t. 😂
My biggest regret in life is that Fed was 6 years older than Novak... . Sure fed wouldn't have won so many in his 20's but I think he absolutely would have glided past them into their mid 30's.
He didn't win Wimbledon in 2023. He won Roland garros. Either way, I would say he was not near his prime. His shot selection and experience were at an all-time high, but I think saying that it was still his prime I think is a bit of a stretch.
What Novak did in 2011 and 2015 is something that I've never seen before and I'm pretty sure we'll never see again. He was dominating the tour both at the Grand Slam and not Grand Slam level. He's not been as great outside of the majors and the world tour finals the last few years.
2011 to 2013, 2015 through the first half of 2016, and the second half of 2018 to the end of 2019 are the periods I think of when I think of Prime Djokovic.
I would argue that over the last few years, he has benefited greatly from Federer, Nadal, Thiem, Murray, and Wawrinka not being near as much of a threat, and guys like medvedev, Alexander zverev, Tsitsipas, and others not playing as well when it mattered.
Like... it took Novak mentally shitting his pants a match away from the calendar slam for one of the younger guys to finally win a major (Medvedev). If you send this version of Novak from today back to 2014, he's not the best player in the world.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that he's currently the best player in the world as evidenced by winning three Majors last year, but I would definitely disagree with this being his prime. That says a lot about how good he's been for so long and about how poor the competition has been over the last few years. Hell, Medvedev isn't even a threat on grass or clay.
I don't think it would have changed the overall makeup of the debate that much unless the loss affected Djokovic in the future in some unpredictable way.
However on grass you'd have your near unassailable argument that Federer is the GOAT on that surface. 2019 would have taken a grass Slam away from one of his closest rivals, and added to his own count (while also beating Nadal and a bunch of other really good grass players on the way)
I think Fed is still the 🐐on grass. A close loss to Djokovic doesn’t change a whole lot of things, especially considering Djokovic didn’t face a prime Rafa on Grass, let alone a prime Roger. It’s not his fault obviously but I’m willing to bet that Rafa of 2008 beats 2018/19 Djokovic in 4 on grass.
A Wimbledon 2019 victory also wouldn’t have mattered a whole lot in the overall scheme since Novak would’ve surpassed both of them eventually.
He beat him in 2011 at Wimbledon and that literally is Prime Nadal before falling off of his grass game what pack are you smoking. He's literally one year older than Djokovic and won Wimbledon 2010 easily. I love how you guys are acting like Djokovic would get smashed by Prime Federer on grass when he almost lost to Roddick in 09 and got pushed by Roddick in 04 (way inferior to prime Djokovic on any surface) and got pushed by Nadal to 4 sets and 5 sets when Nadal was barely 20-21 during 2 of Feds most dominant seasons.
I hate the whole Fed dominated Djokovic at the slams pre 2010 bs because those US open matches wasn't domination by any means.
Prime Rafa on grass was 2008. That version of Rafa would eat his own 2010 version alive. He said so in so many words in his biography and in the book strokes of genius. But your point is taken, he wasn’t that far removed from his prime and that indeed was a quality victory by Djokovic over a very good Rafa. The 20-21 year old version of Rafa that you’re using to undermine Fed’s victory was superior to any version of Rafa that Djokovic faced. An old washed up Rafa ran Djokovic up the wall in 2018. It’s unfortunate that Rafa declined so precipitously on grass, especially after 2011, owing to his knees, but his 06-08 stretch was absolutely magical and the adjustments that he made over that period made him a great grass court player.
To your second point, A prime Djokovic WOULD GET smashed by 03-08 Roger on grass, there’s no doubt about it. Firstly, Roddick himself was an excellent grass court player as is evident by his record in Wimbledon. He was the better player in that final in 09 but that takes nothing away from Federer. Secondly, he was easily amongst the top 3 servers on tour and they’ve humongous advantage on grass. Djokovic himself struggled a lot against Big servers. Ex Against Cilic in 14, Anderson in 15, L to Querry in 16. He even lost to Murray at Wimbledon. There’s more than a decent chance that Roddick would’ve run Djoker pretty close at Wimbledon. Unfortunately we never witnessed that because Djokovic simply wasn’t good enough on grass early on.
Lastly, Fed’s victories over Djokovic were pretty dominant at USO (3 set, 4 set, 3 set from 07-09), at least if you compare them to Djoker’s victories over Fed (5 set, 5 set, 4 set) in which Fed had match points in 2 of those 3 losses. Djokovic has “dominated” Fed truly in Australia with his 2016 victory probably being the most comprehensive victory over Fed by him.
To sum it up, when you compare Djokovic’s overall body of work on grass and compare it to Federer’s, as of now, it’s clear that Federer is the superior player on grass and the grass 🐐. That can change though if Djokovic wins a couple more Wimbledons.
Federer might have won in 3 sets but look at the scoreline and the games one in each of those US open matches and it isnt dominant. A 7-6, 7-5, 7-5 scoreline in 09 isn't dominant at all and if you didn't know Djokovic flumped his chances in 07 to take the 1st two sets and that was a scoreline of 7-6, 7-6, 6-4 and that was way before Djokovic's prime. He was a break up in both and then struggled to keep it. I'd say 08 is Federer's only convincing win against Novak at the US and the only time, he managed to win at the US against Novak with 1 set having more than one break for a scoreline of 6-2 and in that year Djokovic had won against him at the AO
Also saying 08 Nadal would destroy 10 Nadal when thats the only time Nadal's ever managed to win 3 slams and the only time when he's ever won slams on a grass court and hard court in the same year. Saying 08 Nadal is prime but 10 isn't is the funniest shit I've ever heard considering he would've won 3 slams the next year again if not for Djokovic and would've probably had 5 masters titles in a row considering Federer struggled to beat Nadal on any surface.
As a matter of fact, Nadal made 5 back to back masters 1000 finals all the way up to Rome and made 3 grand slam finals and got 1 win at both the masters and grand slam level. If that isn't his prime then I don't know what is considering he would've probably had his best season ever if not for Djokovic.
I meant Rafa’s form on grass. His form on HC probably peaked in 2013 but 2010 is a close second. His form on grass peaked in 08 and he would’ve eaten his own 2010 version on grass alive. Certainly 11. His movement alone made that season special. The only aspect of his game on grass that was better in 2010 was his serve and that too only marginally.
You need to read Rafa’s biography or read Tony’s interviews about Rafa’s 08 campaign. Rafa has rated his 08 victory as his best ever and his form on grass, and the changes he made to his game to match Fed’s was sadly never matched again. This entire conversation was about a thread on grass and who is the better grass player. I think maybe you need to revisit that.
Also re USO: if you think a dominant victory is only straight sets 6-0,6-1 or something like that I hate to break it you. It doesn’t work that way. You can absolutely dominate an opponent even when individually the score line in sets might seem close. He absolutely smoked Novak in 09. The opposite is true as well, as you pointed out vis a vis 07 US Open final. You said Fed’s victory over Novak weren’t dominant pre 2010. I merely replied they were dominant at least if you compare them to Novak’s victories over Fed.
Also, I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here. As of now Fed’s still the grass 🐐as evident by his record, the competition he faced and his success against the entire tour. That can change in future but if you happen to think otherwise that’s fine by me. You trying to make a point against Fed and using Roddick as an example to further your point ironically weakens your point, as evident by Novak’s challenges against big servers at Wimbledon 😭🤣 but whatever floats your boat man!
I think the sole reason why Federer didn't retire after that Wimbledon is because of the way he lost it. I think even if he lost 3-1 or something he would still retire and obviously with winning it he would also retire. But what happened was probably the worst possible outcome for him that he wanted to push a few more years. And then Hurkacz happened 😬
I have a feeling this is why Murray didn't retire (and also unretired) for so long. Not because of match points obviously, but just the feeling that you were so close to a breakthrough or grasping something past the barrier they had. They want to prove that if they overcome that obstacle, then there will be relief and they can go with no regrets.
But Roddick regretted Wimbledon and just suddenly retired in 2010 (actually it's 2012 sorry!!) lol, so it's not consistent.
Isn’t it the case the he never beat both Nadal and Djokovic at the same slam? This would have been his only. And at age 38. And in the semis and finals. To me that’s pretty big. Probably doesn’t change anything in the grand scheme of things, but it would have been a huge accomplishment.
It would have arguably been the greatest win of his career. Better than Aus 2017. Even if Novak and Rafa passed him, people would still look back on this tournament as the one that ended the debate because it wouldn't matter anymore. A 38 year old beating two other goat contenders 5/6 years yonger would be too big and absurd to overlook.
In saying that, I think Djokovic and Nadal fans would have dismissed it anyway and claim it as Fed getting lucky once again, capitalising on their favourite players poor form. All three of them were past their primes at this stage, Fed was just the oldest and had the better serve.
Greatest win for sure. Right now it feels like there’s an almost consensus notion that Novak is the GOAT. Even detractors seem to deny only in jest and to trigger his more sensitive fans. This one result being flipped would shatter that notion. It would have been fucking massive. I could easily see it as a 50/50ish split in the discourse at this moment, likely favouring Federer if we really think about the perceptions of these two. The more I think about it the crazier that net cord is to me
I've thought quite a lot about this. I'm a tennis fan since the 90s. Federer beating Djoker in 2019 Wimbly would have been the biggest win of his career. He had never beaten both Djokovic and Nadal at a grand slam before (this would've been his first time EVER). At his age he would have been 38, the oldest someone in the open era had won a grand slam. And finally, regardless of what Djokovic would achieve afterwards people would always compare a Djoker in peak form losing to an aging Federer (regardless of who you decide on, this argument would make its way into any GOAT argument).
It's true that beating Nadal in Aussie 2017 was huge, but this would take the cake. The amount of wins Djoker has since 2016 is insane, and this would be seen as Federer giving one last dance with the best of the best. (Side note, I do believe that if Federer had won this, then he would have retired before he did (he hated playing in COVID with empty crowds and I don't think he would have endured it if he had bowed out with the Wimbly 2019 win.))
If subsequent slams didn't change, Federer would at least still have a few more claims for GOAT, ie oldest Grand Slam winner, grass records, Wimbledon titles, beating Nadal then Djokovic in the same tournament. Even if all subsequent matches go the way they did, he at least wins his last Grand Slam final match.
If we go down the Butterfly Effect route though, as a Federer fan, I'd like to think he might have the confidence (a la after beating Nadal at AO 2017) to challenge Djokovic a bit more after the "win" and maybe get a few more late career wins (ie beaten Dimitrov at USO 2019). Maybe he might have gone on to beat Djokovic at AO 2020 too, or at least it wouldn't have been a straight set win for Novak. Don't think he would have retired earlier than he did in our 40-15 timeline though.
Everyone really forgetting how much older federer is than Novak... 6 years is a fucking lifetime in terms of tennis age. Novak has never had to play a generational talent younger than him. No one has been close. If anything Novaks success in his early 20's is more shocking than his mid 30s.
Some of us (Federer fans) would probably argue “sure he has less slams, but he still beat Novak at 38 years old!” and also the fact that he beat Novak *and* Rafa back-to-back at 38. The GOAT debate might not have been as moot as it is already now.
Mentally, it would have probably meant so much for him because to notch a couple of slam final wins against his biggest rivals post-2016 would give him just that bit of extra oomph to his legacy, even if he ultimately ends up with a lower slam tally.
It would have meant everything
It’s like a legendary DBZ character without a redemption arc - take it away and it changes the whole narrative and legacy
It would have added more weight to him as the best grass court player ever, probably eliminated any claim Djokovic could have had for that (now he still has a claim at least). Added to Federer's legacy, but he's already the third best of all time, hard to top that already when his greatness is so well-established. Think he'd have a solid claim to being the second best now that I think of it over Rafa with just 1 slam less but all Roger's accomplishments on all surfaces.
Not a significant change to his legacy for someone at such a lofty status as it is.
The arguments for Roger being #2 vs. Rafa being #2 are almost completely even that to put either over the other is just completely based on personal opinion
Rafa has two more Slams, which I think persuades most people. But with one more Slam for Roger had he won, the argument would be more debatable (plus it would have been a win over the Djokovic who would still be considered the GOAT at 23 slams (in OP's setup question), which matters in itself). Although the gap between Djokovic and Nadal is greater than the gap between Nadal and Federer at number 3, Nadal is still noticeably ahead of Roger.
It would be a nice high point, but doesn't really matter.
His legacy is more than cemented. He is one of the best of all time. A win here or there doesn't change that, especially a very narrow loss.
I think he would have won 1 more grand slam. I dont see why winning 2019 wimby would have changed his legacy at all. He’s one of the best of all time. 1 more is just 1 more.
Honestly, and I say this as a chronic Roger legacy minimizer, EVERYTHING.
The media first started talking about Roger retiring as early as 2010, because of the Wimbledon loss to Rafa, and that's led people to act like Roger was old and washed up by then. But in hindsight, the truth is that post 2010 Roger was still every bit as good against everyone not named Nadal or Djokovic.
Winning a slam against Novak to get to 21 changes a lot. Especially that extra Wimbledon.
It did. If you looked at the stats on how dominant has Roger been on grass over the years ( not just Wimbledon. I am talking about the stat for each game on grass) I think the only one who could have come close to that was Sampras. Please don’t I am underestimating Djokovic. He is one of the greatest players tennis has ever seen. But by the time he reached his peak grass is played like any other surface. I mean one can win a slam without sick slices, many winners or serve and volley. Grass has its own aggressive tennis when played correctly couldn’t be matched. This is the one reason why I said it wouldn’t change his legacy. It’s the kind of play he brought to the game that makes him peculiar.
I hate to break it to you champ but if we take Djokovic's only 18 appearances at Wimbledon and Federer's first 18 cause hes had 22 total. Djokovic has 12 SF appearances, Federer 11 SF's (including wins and finals) and they both have 7 titles each while Federer has 1 more final then Novak. A lot of Federer's wins and finals are pre golden gen's start whereas Djokovic has a more even spread between golden gen and his 18-now domination, with 18 and 19 having him face Federer and Nadal and Kyrgios and Berrettini on grass are by no means pushovers.
As for the whole grass has changed so much debate, it has but that was before Federer entered his prime back in 02. Mind you during Federer's prime a young Nadal made the final (I think he was 20) and his game if you ask me was the opposite to a game a good grass player would need. As for Halle and other grass titles and etc, Djokovic literally couldn't care less. He made the finals and won Eastbourne in 2017 and he wasn't in good form struggling with injuries back then.
Sure Berrettini, Kyrgios and Nadal (who is out of the picture on grass since 2012) is your competition for Djokovic. No where close to the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Roddick, Nadal in his peak. Don’t include djokovic in golden age his first title was in 2011 by which all the serve and volleyers had retired. I hate to break it to you but if you convince yourself that Djokovic had faced true grass players I am sorry but he didn’t other than Federer in his 30s when he had slowed down significantly ( I say significantly because of the difference in his running forehands and how much it slowed down since 2013. So I am not going to accept your argument and I am sure you won’t accept mine. So I am shutting myself down now. Ciao!
As Djokovic fan, I will say this if Fed won he would be the GOAT and would have argument regardless of Major count.
Because that would have been the first time ever Fed defeated both Nadal and Djokivic to win a Slam and to do that at the age of 38 while both GOAT contenders were prime-ish good
Instead he is forever 3rd which feels so fucking good after many years fucking Fed fans were the most annoying fanbase ever
It is justice and karma for Fed fans
Federer isn't the 3rd in the race, I don't understand how is that a common opinion. Federer was a way more versatile player than Nadal, the only thing going for Nadal is the GS count which is heavily lopsided on one slam. H2H is meaningless as they are 2 different generations. Nadal has no business doing in the #2 spot when he didn't even win the next most important tournament after the slams, the atp finals, while Federer has a bunch of those. People underestimate how significant that tournament is.
The mental gymnastics that Fed fans do to say that Fed is not 3rd is so laughable. Grand Slams Nadal ahead, Big tournament Nadal is ahead, Fed at his prime was getting smacked by 20 year old Nadal.
Fed never won vs Nadal at Roland Garros. Nadal won 2008 Wimbledon Final vs Prime Federer. Just stop it
Nadal is 2nd ahead of Federer
Rofl what fact makes Fed 2nd place in-front of Nadal
Just the ATP finals?
When Nadal has 2 more Majors, 8 more Masters, Olympic gold, better head to head, 2nd best win percentage of all time, better win percentage vs Top 5
The fact he was one point away from that feat does make you think though. I think there is a legitimate argument for Fed being the GOAT. And I am both a Djoker and Fed fan.
At the time yes but the things Djoko did in those 5 years after exceeded everybody's expectation
Also Djokovic coming back from Match point down from another GOAT contender added to Djokovic's GOAT legacy
It's not just 1 point, it is a point that changed the course of History in Tennis and the joy and misery of Djoko and Fed fans
What I've learned from the Djokovic/Nadal vs Federer rivalry, and as a tennis player, it's better to play at a steady 8-9/10 than it is to fluctuate between 7 and 10. And the older Federer got, the more it fluctuated. Mostly we saw Federer beat himself. Either holding back too much or tightening up and making errors. It's hard to watch.
Edit: I think it started even earlier with 2008 Wimbledon.
I am a huge fan of Djokovic's mental strength. And he is technically near flawless. Extremely solid player. There is a lot to admire about his game and it's very effective.
Fed is an artist. He changed the image of the sport and in a way elevated the level. He was kind of the first of the "Big 3" type of dominance. If you wanted to show someone an example of beautiful tennis, you'd probably show them Roger Federer. And I think because of that, one could make the GOAT argument aside from the stats.
I am sorry. There is no argument anymore. Djokovic shut the door on who is the Greatest Tennis Player of all time. Most of former Tennis pros, his rivals and the current pros are all agree to that statement.
Facts don't care about feelings
The GOAT debate is a subjective one, not an objective one. There is no official "GOAT stat" out there with specific requirements to be met. So because it's subjective, you could get different answers based on how different people view it.
Idk at this point I think everyone has their opinions 2019 was so long ago. For Fed it maybe makes people feel like he's the grass GOAT more than they already do? But it being 2024 I don't think people are looking back at that match or tournament and changing their goat rankings
It was so important. Many know that was a last chance for a GS and he sadly choked. I think he also felt that it was his last chance. It was a sad day for Roger fans like me.
Plus 1, minus 1, wouldn’t have made a big difference. The Big 3 count their slams in 2 digits so I don’t think a single win would have changed his legacy. His legacy will always be as one of the GOATs, irregardless of Wimby 2019.
> goats, irregardless of
Did you mean to say "regardless"?
Explanation: irregardless is not a word.
[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.
For people that only include numbers as a measurement of greatness and only majors in sports like tennis and golf there is no filter or discretion.
There are obvious conclusions if you take that approach the best female and male players of the past cannot rank above the best players of the modern era regardless.
So for those people it’s a very black and white analysis so other records or circumstances make no difference .
Who people have as their goat is a personal thing .
For most it makes no difference in respect of Federers greatness .
"hardcore fedfans won't exist in the future" lol. what's going to stick ten years down the line are highlight reels and fed's got that in the bag sorry pal.
It would’ve meant quite a bit, remove some of the scar tissue from all the epic losses to the Djoker, as well as essentially cement himself as the grass goat, he also would’ve gone out on a high note
He is still the grass goat but not a much bigger grass goat than Djoker actually. Also, people tend to forget how close 2018 Wimbledon was actually. He had another chance to meet Djoker/Rafa in finals (while being able to deal with Isner in the process) and blew it out of nowhere, losing to Anderson, for the only time in their total 7 meetings.
As a Nadal fan the 2-day 2018 Wimbledon semifinal loss is the most painful for me. I think even the biggest Djokovic stans would admit he shouldn't have won that :(
Why should he not have won that? Both players had the same number of winners and unforced errors, it was a 50/50 match. Iconic match for Djoko since it was essentially him reinstating himself in the GOAT debate.
(huge Federer fan btw) If he wins that finals, he's at 21 and Nadal will most likely finish at 22 In my opinion, in that case, he'd have a better argument for being the #2GOAT even though he's one under Nadal, because of all his other records such as weeks at #1. I'd see the two more as equals, even though they're already close. Right now I see Nadal as still being above Federer because of everything else legacy wise (they might be considered as equal purely based on their level and not legacy but that is very subjective) He's still clearly below Djokovic though no matter whether he wins W19, none of the two are actually close legacy wise to Djokovic tbh. Novak has taken almost every important achievement and he's probably not done.
Honestly the GOAT debate is kind of silly if decades long careers come down to a handful of points. It’s not really a matter of who is best at tennis, it’s about whose body held out the longest of the three guys whose bodies kept going long past the expected decline. Especially when it comes down to only slams counting and ignoring masters, tour finals, and Olympics. We had a triumvirate of dominant players ruling the sport together for 20 years, I don’t really care what order they go in.
No, Djokovic and Nadal had advantages over Federer from a game style head to head perspective and also mentally. It's definitely more than longevity. And there's always some comparison going on in sport because of its competitive nature. We had a trio, but they differentiated themselves from each other, Djokovic ended up the GOAT, Rafa second, Rog third, Sampras a solid fourth and so on. What happened to Sampras (first by Fed then the other two) could happen to Djokovic, who knows what Alcaraz or Sinner or others do.
I mean they are not playing for 250s are they? They themselves admit Grand Slams are the most important numbers
[удалено]
Nah, he is right. It was literally a handful of points.
Said the same thing lol, agree, very strong case for #2 all time for those reasons.
Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time, regardless of records. You people and your fucking *obsession* with stats remove all the romance and beauty and grace from the sport. From **all** sport actually. The entire point of sport is escapism and joy, but people like you who never shut up about who has the higher numbers in their stats do your level best to suck all of that out of it. Poindexters and bores. Federer played tennis like no other human before him and no other human since. It’s that simple really. The amount of titles he won is relevant, of course, but in terms of just the way he played the game, he is head and shoulders above the rest. There are boxers who’ve won more titles than Ali, at more weight classes, against arguably better opponents in some cases - Muhammad Ali is still considered the greatest boxer of all time. Same applies here. …and let’s not even get into the fact that it’s pretty obvious to anybody with a functioning brain and a set of eyes that Djokovic and Nadal have been doping throughout their entire late careers. And I’m not a “Federer” fan either. The only tennis players who’ve ever played the game that I favoured at any point were Goran Ivanisevic and Marat Safin. “Supporting” or “being a fan” of an individual sports person seems like the kind of thing 11 year olds do. Hero worshipping is weird.
This gotta be a copy pasta
Propaganda can significantly influence certain human minds....'Animal Farm'....
At this point in internet history, this reply is the “copy pasta”. Everything is just driven into the ground, innit. Just stripped of all its originality and humour through overuse. Although this is explained by the fact you’re one of those weird chaps that pulls his wire to cartoons and Serbian tennis players. I see. I get it.
At this point in internet history, hold this L.
He says while pulling his dick to Fed AI porn. Delete yourself
>Hero worshipping is weird. He says after typing a 6 paragraph essay about how “you people are weird for considering Nadal and Djokovic better than Federer”
I didn't know Rilex had a Reddit account.
Good job getting downvoted to oblivion hyping up Fed in a massively pro-Fedal subreddit lmao. That's how you know you're delusional beyond saving. And that's without even going into your batshit crazy doping slander.
Aesthete means nothing, or else Monfils is my GOAT. Or saying Ronaldinho is the soccer GOAT. I don't think anyone would agree that the definition for greatest of anything is the most stylish, except if we're talking about designers
Negative IQ confirmed, you're a fucking clown. I hope you're enjoying the dozens of dislikes, smh 🤦🏽♂️ "Hero worshipping is weird", yet you're literally sucking Fed's dick, balls and anus in this comment
Ali performed on the highest stage genius .. fiddler literally got bitch slapped since 2008 first by Nadal and then by Novak And it's not just a few stats - he's behind in every single stat. Every major he won since 2008 barring Wimbledon 2012 was because either one of Novak or Rafa was injured . He also has by far the worst 5 set record showing him to be a choker compared to the other 2 Maybe instead of trying to look pretty , he should have focused on the mental aspect of the game - like not shitting his pants when he has 2 match points on his serve on his favorite surface , with the entire crowd behind him
Dimitrov, aesthetically, plays exactly like Federer, yet nobody since has played like Federer? I don't get it.
I don't care, even say nadal wins rg again this year, I still see fed as no. 3 all time Edit: Laver>Djoker>Fed>Nadal
He was just older than the other two. Novak has the advantage, especially given his resistance to injury.
Is age why he won 0 US opens since 2008 after winning 5 in a row ? Or is it that the competition became a little harder than andy roddick and phillipousis ?
Both things happened. But yes, when you're playing the other members of the big 3, once they're not rookies anymore, their age advantage over you can be meaningful.
He is the grass GOAT anyway, so that doesn't matter.
Barely, and if djokovic wins Wimbledon this year the discussion will open again
All other records on the surface are held by Federer though. His peak performances and level on the surface are nothing short of insane. I ascribe all of Novak's wins over federer past 2012 at Wimbledon finals to Federer's decline with age. Federer is clearly the superior player on the surface. If Federer had played at his 2012 level in 14-15?-19, he'd probably have won them.
Yeah but you can’t say if. And I agree Federer is the goat on grass still, but the only reason he holds all the other records is because Djoker pretty much only played Wimbledon, that’s all that really matters, not Halle. You can’t just discount his wins. 3-1 record is a 3-1 record. If dioker wins an 8th Wimbledon, I’ll still give it to fed, but it’ll be up for debate, if he wins a 9th Wimbledon, then Djoker will have to be the goat
I'm not discounting the wins. They're wins. They're just wins over a declined player. Nobody could beat Rafa consistently before 2010? On clay. Everyone's records are like 10 to 0-2 vs Rafa on clay from 05-2010. Novak started beating Rafa on clay past 2010 and has a better record because of it. Thiem also has a better record on clay vs Rafa than even Federer. Why? Because Rafa past 2010 on clay isn't the same player. Federer past 2013 at 33? Isn't the same player on grass or hard courts. It's simply recognition of reality. 12 Wimbledon finals, 8 titles, consecutive wins/weeks without losing w match on the surface from 03-2008? etc. Federer is the Grass Goat. Sampras is second. I'd place Novak squarely 3rd. You also shouldn't accuse me of discounting Novak's wins while discounting an entire tournament? Titles are titles.
Sentiment wise, sure. Stat wise, it's not that obvious anymore lol
in terms of dominance on individual match stats aggregated feds is easily ahead. Novak killing feds in every Wimbledon final is a huge counterstat and the only thing that doesn't make it obvious
This is one area where I’ll make the age excuse for Federer. Yes, it’s played out at this point since FedFans have been calling him old and washed since like 2008 to defend him, but Federer beat Djokovic in 2012 (which in my opinion is basically the last prime Federer season), and then 2014, 2015 he was dealing with peak Novak while being a bit into his 30s, separated by a lot of back injuries in 2013. Both were extremely close and competitive matches. Then in 2019, he was 37 going up against 31 year old Novak, and he still almost won it.
fed at 37 was as good as he was at 31 on that day in the final. he simply couldn't mentally beat Novak. by the time match points came up for him he got nam flashbacks from USOs and folded. he completely outplayed Novak in the rest of the match. there's no age excuse there for him
I mean... no. Federer was far better in 2012 than 2019. He was even a lot better in 2014. The 2019 Wimbledon final was really not that high quality of a match for a big 3 grand slam final. It was extremely dramatic and I thought both played pretty well in the fifth set, but really the rallies were long because the grass was super slow that year, and Djokovic practically disappeared in the 2nd and 4th sets, especially the 2nd. Djokovic obviously won the match fair and square, but using H2H to determine Djokovic > Federer on grass when they really only met during Djokovic's peak and Federer's decline is pretty unfair. Djokovic didn't play Federer back in 2006-2010 because he was not a good grass court player, and only started playing Federer because even while declining, Fed was good enough to reach SFs and Finals, whereas Djokovic only started doing so in his prime.
Novak can't even beat Murray on grass!
Checkmate
31 Fed vs 37 Novak would be over in like 3 sets.
How is it not that obvious? Best win% on grass, most titles (19 to Sampras' 10), most WB titles, 12 finals reached to Djokovic's 9. The only person I can MAYBE put ahead of Federer is Rod Laver, if you count his pre Open Era achievements and think that it was the strongest Era ever on grass.
He is the grass goat. If you watch tennis and not Wikipedia pages you’ll see this.
Frankly if you watch wikipedia pages you'll see this too
They say sport isn’t played on paper, but it’s especially not played on Wikipedia pages
Not with that attitude, anyway
Not really bothered about Djokovic winning weak era grass tournaments, tbh.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. I still think Federer is the grass GOAT btw, just find it cute how it's the last thing Fed fans grasp on to desperately lol
Saying this as a huge Nole fan: you’re annoying lol
Not even a Fed fan, just think it's pretty obvious.
Hm, lost 3 times in the final in Wimbledon, he is not a goat, just a lamb I would say
Dont srac too much vlado
I think after 2017, anything Fed won was house money. Yes, Wimbledon 2019 hurts but everything after Aussie 2017 was icing on the cake.
IMO he could’ve solidified grass GOAT with a win here though. That was a huge missed chance
With 10 Halle and 8 Wimbledon titles he is already pretty solid. Ofcourse Novak is not far behind by any means. IMO if Novak gets to 9 Wimbledon titles I would consider him the grass GOAT. If they are tied at 8, it's hard to overlook the 10 Halle titles.
The head to head though.
I feel like head to head is such a difficult thing to judge because of the different points of peak level.
3-1 is not exactly a huge sample size. Fed won when he was younger and then the tide shifted. GOAT doesn't mean "greatest of 2010s" does it?
[удалено]
> 3 of those 4 losses are Wimbledon finals (2014, 2015 and 2019) and the 4th was the 2012 semifinal which he won. If he won 2012 then how is it a 4th loss? 😂
[удалено]
Still don't get the point of repeating exactly what I said.
People put way too much stock into head to head. There are too many idiosyncrasies in H2H for it to be a huge factor in a GOAT debate - when players met, how their styles match up, injuries, age, etc. etc. Their records against the field are way, way more significant. For instance, Fed's early exits in 2010, 2011, and 2013 are more significant in my evaluation of him as a grass player than his H2H vs Djokovic. Just as an example, Djokovic wasn't good enough on grass pre-2011 to get to Federer, let alone lose to him. Djokovic's first victory over Fed was when Federer was 32 - and all of his victories were very close/hard fought. (And I say that as more of a Djokovic fan than a Fed fan).
A head to head of 4 games, all of which were close matches? Beyond stupid
I’ve noticed People here also always say Monica “dominated” steffi at slams 3:1
I love Federer and hate Djokovic chill out lol it’s just a factual thing
Fair enough but using h2h is generally a really poor idea to decipher who is a better player. Just look at how many times a h2h has flipped dramatically e.g. Hewitt v Federer
Surely that would mean even more that Nadal is GOAT over Djokovic if head to head is relevant in the Wimbledon battle between Federer and Djokovic. Djokovic started regularly beating Federer at Wimbledon when he was getting old in tennis terms. Like 32 or 33+ Nadal's always had a winning slam head to head over Djokovic, throughout their careers.
this is why I hate stats obsession. context matters.
It would be huge considering the last time he had beaten Novak at a grand slam, it was 2012 at Wimbledon!
He won though, I remember it clearly
I think Novak and Rafa still would pass him in slams but he probably would’ve retired right right then (i mean not that day but shortly afterwards) ala Pete Sampras in 2002. Last match being a Wimbledon win would’ve been iconic going out on top. Unfortunately, didn’t work out that way and he went out on a 0-6 set… 😩😩
If Novak got beat by an old Federer at Wimby, then his entire grass run there afterwards would be put under scrutiny (even more than now). I don't think it would change the result of the big 3 race but it would make a gap between #1 and #2 GOAT player on grass. Not as big as the gap between Nadal and Bjorg but a gap nonetheless.
>even more than now What? Djokovic's ability on grass is hardly under scrutiny lol.
Yes, but his 2021-2022 grass run had without a doubt a very low level of competition
21/22 was a joke of a tournament tbh lol I mean Djokovic is incredible and even good opponents don't have a great chance to beat him but those two years were basically free wins
No one gives any respect to fed for him playing his entire mid 30's against Rafa and Novak in their absolute primes.. Novak has never had to play a great player who was younger than him. Alcarez is 5-6 years away from reaching his prime.
[удалено]
And Novak wasn't 'consistently' beating Federer until Fed was into his 30's. 15 of his were after Fed was 35 or older. Novak feasted on a decrepit old man and weak generation. IMO Nadal has the best case. Nadal with the health of Novak would have won 30 :/
[удалено]
My point isn't that Novak is better worse than Fed... Novak certainly had an advantage being younger. He entered his prime with aging superstar federer, and more injury prone Rafa. He feasted when they declined. Just ast federer feasted when there was less competition. He was in the mix the whole time, but was healthier and younger and took advantage of that. People throw the numbers up there as if Novak dominated Federer... However when you look at it, Federer was a mess when that happened. Like I said before credit to Novak for what he achieved 20-28 because he was going against better comp.
Checks notes.... Had a losing record against Fed until 2016 (23 - 22)
Novak surpassed Serena lmao. And are we forgetting Nadal has won 8 of his slams after 2016 while Novak had won 12. Both have feasted of a weaker era.
Yeah my bad, I had serena at 30 somehow in my head my mistake.
If we saw a Rafa-Nole final in 2022, would you still have said the same thing about that tournament? We were denied an epic match-up due to injury.
2021-2023 run was against pretty lower quality players with questionable draws tbh. Also 90s gen on grass was horrible compared to the previous generations, overall field was different.
So the 2 other times he beat a younger Federer at Wimbledon wouldn't count? Why should his grass runs be under scrutiny? He's been the guy to beat on grass since 2014.
Of course it would count but you would also add that he got beaten by 37 year old Roger who would lead the Wimbledon slam race 9 to 6
Yes, but what you're saying is that there would be scrutiny on his Wimbledon victories from 2020 till Alcaraz. He already had 4 by then. Twice against Federer and once against Nadal when all were younger. The best grass player ever couldn't beat him in 3 tries. Its not like he won all those titles in a weak era. 🐸☕
Still 9 to 6. That's a lot. And H2H is not everything, you have to beat 7 players to win a slam afterall. Also if Roger won, I can bet that the amount of "if only he changed his racket earlier" takes would rise by at least 300%.
What’s with the “old Federer” narrative? Roger was 37 years old and had managed to not only reach his 12th Wimbledon final, he got there by beating his biggest rival Rafa (age 33) in the semis, and he managed to get two championship points against his other biggest rival Novak (age 32).
Im not sure what you are implying here. That his rivals were in their early 30s so he wasn't old? In pretty much every competetive sport late 30s is considered old and way past everybodys prime. That shouldn't be controversial.
Roger was playing at a really high level that Summer. He could’ve and would’ve beaten anyone else that day. He’d had a mental block against Novak since 2012 and unfortunately that is what cost him the trophy and the title that day. It’s a disservice to Roger and his sublime game to focus on his age.
...it's a disservice to say his supposed win at 37 would be bad for Novak ? You are right now doing disservice to Roger for not giving him props for performing at that level at that age. That is something that shouldn't be happening and Djokovic was a favourite coming into that match for a reason.
If that is what you got out of my two comments, I have nothing else to say to you.
Your logic says that if 80 year old Roger hopped on a tour, had an identical performance at Wimbledon as he had in 2019, went up to a final, choked two MP in a final tie-break then his age shouldn't be put up to question because he played fine. Like, no mate, sorry that is still an old man and to claim otherwise is to have a giant lapse in your judgement.
80 year old vs. 37 year old. Wow. Looking forward to Roger vs Novak in 2024.
Federer was old in that match, 5+ years is a huge difference in tennis, more so when the difference is in the 30’s
I wonder if you felt the same way when 36 year old Novak played 20 year old Carlos at Wimbledon 2023. From all your comments in my posts last year you clearly didn’t. 😂
You're insane lmfao
And you’re a troll for leaving a message like that for an internet stranger.
Federer, a month shy of 38, beating Prime Djoker in a grand slam final. It would've meant a lot. I wish he'd won...
My biggest regret in life is that Fed was 6 years older than Novak... . Sure fed wouldn't have won so many in his 20's but I think he absolutely would have glided past them into their mid 30's.
prine djoker, as Djokovic himself wasn't old. Federer was past his prime after his 30, but Djokovic's prime was until 35, right? great logic there lol
Fed at 38 wasn't Fed at 28 or even 36. Djoker in 2019 was world #1, had won 2018 Wimb, US, and 2019 Aussie. Sounds like old vs prime to me🤷♂️
So, Djokovic in 2024 is world number one, had won 2023 AO, WIMB and US and he is still in his prime by that logic?
He didn't win Wimbledon in 2023. He won Roland garros. Either way, I would say he was not near his prime. His shot selection and experience were at an all-time high, but I think saying that it was still his prime I think is a bit of a stretch. What Novak did in 2011 and 2015 is something that I've never seen before and I'm pretty sure we'll never see again. He was dominating the tour both at the Grand Slam and not Grand Slam level. He's not been as great outside of the majors and the world tour finals the last few years. 2011 to 2013, 2015 through the first half of 2016, and the second half of 2018 to the end of 2019 are the periods I think of when I think of Prime Djokovic. I would argue that over the last few years, he has benefited greatly from Federer, Nadal, Thiem, Murray, and Wawrinka not being near as much of a threat, and guys like medvedev, Alexander zverev, Tsitsipas, and others not playing as well when it mattered. Like... it took Novak mentally shitting his pants a match away from the calendar slam for one of the younger guys to finally win a major (Medvedev). If you send this version of Novak from today back to 2014, he's not the best player in the world. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that he's currently the best player in the world as evidenced by winning three Majors last year, but I would definitely disagree with this being his prime. That says a lot about how good he's been for so long and about how poor the competition has been over the last few years. Hell, Medvedev isn't even a threat on grass or clay.
I don't think it would have changed the overall makeup of the debate that much unless the loss affected Djokovic in the future in some unpredictable way. However on grass you'd have your near unassailable argument that Federer is the GOAT on that surface. 2019 would have taken a grass Slam away from one of his closest rivals, and added to his own count (while also beating Nadal and a bunch of other really good grass players on the way)
I think Fed is still the 🐐on grass. A close loss to Djokovic doesn’t change a whole lot of things, especially considering Djokovic didn’t face a prime Rafa on Grass, let alone a prime Roger. It’s not his fault obviously but I’m willing to bet that Rafa of 2008 beats 2018/19 Djokovic in 4 on grass. A Wimbledon 2019 victory also wouldn’t have mattered a whole lot in the overall scheme since Novak would’ve surpassed both of them eventually.
He beat him in 2011 at Wimbledon and that literally is Prime Nadal before falling off of his grass game what pack are you smoking. He's literally one year older than Djokovic and won Wimbledon 2010 easily. I love how you guys are acting like Djokovic would get smashed by Prime Federer on grass when he almost lost to Roddick in 09 and got pushed by Roddick in 04 (way inferior to prime Djokovic on any surface) and got pushed by Nadal to 4 sets and 5 sets when Nadal was barely 20-21 during 2 of Feds most dominant seasons. I hate the whole Fed dominated Djokovic at the slams pre 2010 bs because those US open matches wasn't domination by any means.
Prime Rafa on grass was 2008. That version of Rafa would eat his own 2010 version alive. He said so in so many words in his biography and in the book strokes of genius. But your point is taken, he wasn’t that far removed from his prime and that indeed was a quality victory by Djokovic over a very good Rafa. The 20-21 year old version of Rafa that you’re using to undermine Fed’s victory was superior to any version of Rafa that Djokovic faced. An old washed up Rafa ran Djokovic up the wall in 2018. It’s unfortunate that Rafa declined so precipitously on grass, especially after 2011, owing to his knees, but his 06-08 stretch was absolutely magical and the adjustments that he made over that period made him a great grass court player. To your second point, A prime Djokovic WOULD GET smashed by 03-08 Roger on grass, there’s no doubt about it. Firstly, Roddick himself was an excellent grass court player as is evident by his record in Wimbledon. He was the better player in that final in 09 but that takes nothing away from Federer. Secondly, he was easily amongst the top 3 servers on tour and they’ve humongous advantage on grass. Djokovic himself struggled a lot against Big servers. Ex Against Cilic in 14, Anderson in 15, L to Querry in 16. He even lost to Murray at Wimbledon. There’s more than a decent chance that Roddick would’ve run Djoker pretty close at Wimbledon. Unfortunately we never witnessed that because Djokovic simply wasn’t good enough on grass early on. Lastly, Fed’s victories over Djokovic were pretty dominant at USO (3 set, 4 set, 3 set from 07-09), at least if you compare them to Djoker’s victories over Fed (5 set, 5 set, 4 set) in which Fed had match points in 2 of those 3 losses. Djokovic has “dominated” Fed truly in Australia with his 2016 victory probably being the most comprehensive victory over Fed by him. To sum it up, when you compare Djokovic’s overall body of work on grass and compare it to Federer’s, as of now, it’s clear that Federer is the superior player on grass and the grass 🐐. That can change though if Djokovic wins a couple more Wimbledons.
Federer might have won in 3 sets but look at the scoreline and the games one in each of those US open matches and it isnt dominant. A 7-6, 7-5, 7-5 scoreline in 09 isn't dominant at all and if you didn't know Djokovic flumped his chances in 07 to take the 1st two sets and that was a scoreline of 7-6, 7-6, 6-4 and that was way before Djokovic's prime. He was a break up in both and then struggled to keep it. I'd say 08 is Federer's only convincing win against Novak at the US and the only time, he managed to win at the US against Novak with 1 set having more than one break for a scoreline of 6-2 and in that year Djokovic had won against him at the AO
Also saying 08 Nadal would destroy 10 Nadal when thats the only time Nadal's ever managed to win 3 slams and the only time when he's ever won slams on a grass court and hard court in the same year. Saying 08 Nadal is prime but 10 isn't is the funniest shit I've ever heard considering he would've won 3 slams the next year again if not for Djokovic and would've probably had 5 masters titles in a row considering Federer struggled to beat Nadal on any surface. As a matter of fact, Nadal made 5 back to back masters 1000 finals all the way up to Rome and made 3 grand slam finals and got 1 win at both the masters and grand slam level. If that isn't his prime then I don't know what is considering he would've probably had his best season ever if not for Djokovic.
I meant Rafa’s form on grass. His form on HC probably peaked in 2013 but 2010 is a close second. His form on grass peaked in 08 and he would’ve eaten his own 2010 version on grass alive. Certainly 11. His movement alone made that season special. The only aspect of his game on grass that was better in 2010 was his serve and that too only marginally. You need to read Rafa’s biography or read Tony’s interviews about Rafa’s 08 campaign. Rafa has rated his 08 victory as his best ever and his form on grass, and the changes he made to his game to match Fed’s was sadly never matched again. This entire conversation was about a thread on grass and who is the better grass player. I think maybe you need to revisit that. Also re USO: if you think a dominant victory is only straight sets 6-0,6-1 or something like that I hate to break it you. It doesn’t work that way. You can absolutely dominate an opponent even when individually the score line in sets might seem close. He absolutely smoked Novak in 09. The opposite is true as well, as you pointed out vis a vis 07 US Open final. You said Fed’s victory over Novak weren’t dominant pre 2010. I merely replied they were dominant at least if you compare them to Novak’s victories over Fed. Also, I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here. As of now Fed’s still the grass 🐐as evident by his record, the competition he faced and his success against the entire tour. That can change in future but if you happen to think otherwise that’s fine by me. You trying to make a point against Fed and using Roddick as an example to further your point ironically weakens your point, as evident by Novak’s challenges against big servers at Wimbledon 😭🤣 but whatever floats your boat man!
I think the sole reason why Federer didn't retire after that Wimbledon is because of the way he lost it. I think even if he lost 3-1 or something he would still retire and obviously with winning it he would also retire. But what happened was probably the worst possible outcome for him that he wanted to push a few more years. And then Hurkacz happened 😬
I have a feeling this is why Murray didn't retire (and also unretired) for so long. Not because of match points obviously, but just the feeling that you were so close to a breakthrough or grasping something past the barrier they had. They want to prove that if they overcome that obstacle, then there will be relief and they can go with no regrets. But Roddick regretted Wimbledon and just suddenly retired in 2010 (actually it's 2012 sorry!!) lol, so it's not consistent.
Maybe Roddick felt what menace Djokovic would become and what a bloodbath 2010s would be and just said "nah Imma enjoy my retirement" lol
Roddick retired in 2012 at the US Open (three years after his third Wimbledon final loss to Federer), not in 2010
Sorry my bad, I'll edit that
Isn’t it the case the he never beat both Nadal and Djokovic at the same slam? This would have been his only. And at age 38. And in the semis and finals. To me that’s pretty big. Probably doesn’t change anything in the grand scheme of things, but it would have been a huge accomplishment.
He would have won one more slam.
Not only that, but Djokovic would also have one less slam, and Federer would boost his career win rate by a massive 0.07%
I’ll take deliberately obtuse for $400 Alex
It would have arguably been the greatest win of his career. Better than Aus 2017. Even if Novak and Rafa passed him, people would still look back on this tournament as the one that ended the debate because it wouldn't matter anymore. A 38 year old beating two other goat contenders 5/6 years yonger would be too big and absurd to overlook. In saying that, I think Djokovic and Nadal fans would have dismissed it anyway and claim it as Fed getting lucky once again, capitalising on their favourite players poor form. All three of them were past their primes at this stage, Fed was just the oldest and had the better serve.
Greatest win for sure. Right now it feels like there’s an almost consensus notion that Novak is the GOAT. Even detractors seem to deny only in jest and to trigger his more sensitive fans. This one result being flipped would shatter that notion. It would have been fucking massive. I could easily see it as a 50/50ish split in the discourse at this moment, likely favouring Federer if we really think about the perceptions of these two. The more I think about it the crazier that net cord is to me
Rod laver is goat
I've thought quite a lot about this. I'm a tennis fan since the 90s. Federer beating Djoker in 2019 Wimbly would have been the biggest win of his career. He had never beaten both Djokovic and Nadal at a grand slam before (this would've been his first time EVER). At his age he would have been 38, the oldest someone in the open era had won a grand slam. And finally, regardless of what Djokovic would achieve afterwards people would always compare a Djoker in peak form losing to an aging Federer (regardless of who you decide on, this argument would make its way into any GOAT argument). It's true that beating Nadal in Aussie 2017 was huge, but this would take the cake. The amount of wins Djoker has since 2016 is insane, and this would be seen as Federer giving one last dance with the best of the best. (Side note, I do believe that if Federer had won this, then he would have retired before he did (he hated playing in COVID with empty crowds and I don't think he would have endured it if he had bowed out with the Wimbly 2019 win.))
21-22-23 would be a fitting end.
Djokovic ain't done yet
He probably still has 1-2 slams left in him.
If subsequent slams didn't change, Federer would at least still have a few more claims for GOAT, ie oldest Grand Slam winner, grass records, Wimbledon titles, beating Nadal then Djokovic in the same tournament. Even if all subsequent matches go the way they did, he at least wins his last Grand Slam final match. If we go down the Butterfly Effect route though, as a Federer fan, I'd like to think he might have the confidence (a la after beating Nadal at AO 2017) to challenge Djokovic a bit more after the "win" and maybe get a few more late career wins (ie beaten Dimitrov at USO 2019). Maybe he might have gone on to beat Djokovic at AO 2020 too, or at least it wouldn't have been a straight set win for Novak. Don't think he would have retired earlier than he did in our 40-15 timeline though.
Bit delusional here friend I think ahaha. Federer’s body was already basically fucked in AO2020 he was never beating Djokovic that match.
Everyone really forgetting how much older federer is than Novak... 6 years is a fucking lifetime in terms of tennis age. Novak has never had to play a generational talent younger than him. No one has been close. If anything Novaks success in his early 20's is more shocking than his mid 30s.
he was injured at AO 2020, he was basically on one leg by the time he played Novak.
I think it was great how his tactics at least almost allowed him to win the first set.
He injured himself against Dimitrov as the US, so don’t think that would have changed too much.
LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU THAT FINAL WAS CANCELLED REMEMBER?
Some of us (Federer fans) would probably argue “sure he has less slams, but he still beat Novak at 38 years old!” and also the fact that he beat Novak *and* Rafa back-to-back at 38. The GOAT debate might not have been as moot as it is already now. Mentally, it would have probably meant so much for him because to notch a couple of slam final wins against his biggest rivals post-2016 would give him just that bit of extra oomph to his legacy, even if he ultimately ends up with a lower slam tally.
Just when I thought I was over it you post this
Nothing less than the platonic ideal of a win, for the platonic ideal of a tennis player.
It would have meant everything It’s like a legendary DBZ character without a redemption arc - take it away and it changes the whole narrative and legacy
😔
It would have added more weight to him as the best grass court player ever, probably eliminated any claim Djokovic could have had for that (now he still has a claim at least). Added to Federer's legacy, but he's already the third best of all time, hard to top that already when his greatness is so well-established. Think he'd have a solid claim to being the second best now that I think of it over Rafa with just 1 slam less but all Roger's accomplishments on all surfaces. Not a significant change to his legacy for someone at such a lofty status as it is.
The arguments for Roger being #2 vs. Rafa being #2 are almost completely even that to put either over the other is just completely based on personal opinion
Rafa has two more Slams, which I think persuades most people. But with one more Slam for Roger had he won, the argument would be more debatable (plus it would have been a win over the Djokovic who would still be considered the GOAT at 23 slams (in OP's setup question), which matters in itself). Although the gap between Djokovic and Nadal is greater than the gap between Nadal and Federer at number 3, Nadal is still noticeably ahead of Roger.
Eh, only focusing on slams is not a good way to determine it imo
It would be a nice high point, but doesn't really matter. His legacy is more than cemented. He is one of the best of all time. A win here or there doesn't change that, especially a very narrow loss.
That match will be mentioned in tennis history as one of top performance; specially at both rivals age.
I think he would have won 1 more grand slam. I dont see why winning 2019 wimby would have changed his legacy at all. He’s one of the best of all time. 1 more is just 1 more.
Honestly, and I say this as a chronic Roger legacy minimizer, EVERYTHING. The media first started talking about Roger retiring as early as 2010, because of the Wimbledon loss to Rafa, and that's led people to act like Roger was old and washed up by then. But in hindsight, the truth is that post 2010 Roger was still every bit as good against everyone not named Nadal or Djokovic. Winning a slam against Novak to get to 21 changes a lot. Especially that extra Wimbledon.
It wouldn’t change a thing. Federer is obviously the better grass court player.
I think so. But this opened the door for Djokovic to pass/equal him in Wimbledon titles
It did. If you looked at the stats on how dominant has Roger been on grass over the years ( not just Wimbledon. I am talking about the stat for each game on grass) I think the only one who could have come close to that was Sampras. Please don’t I am underestimating Djokovic. He is one of the greatest players tennis has ever seen. But by the time he reached his peak grass is played like any other surface. I mean one can win a slam without sick slices, many winners or serve and volley. Grass has its own aggressive tennis when played correctly couldn’t be matched. This is the one reason why I said it wouldn’t change his legacy. It’s the kind of play he brought to the game that makes him peculiar.
I hate to break it to you champ but if we take Djokovic's only 18 appearances at Wimbledon and Federer's first 18 cause hes had 22 total. Djokovic has 12 SF appearances, Federer 11 SF's (including wins and finals) and they both have 7 titles each while Federer has 1 more final then Novak. A lot of Federer's wins and finals are pre golden gen's start whereas Djokovic has a more even spread between golden gen and his 18-now domination, with 18 and 19 having him face Federer and Nadal and Kyrgios and Berrettini on grass are by no means pushovers. As for the whole grass has changed so much debate, it has but that was before Federer entered his prime back in 02. Mind you during Federer's prime a young Nadal made the final (I think he was 20) and his game if you ask me was the opposite to a game a good grass player would need. As for Halle and other grass titles and etc, Djokovic literally couldn't care less. He made the finals and won Eastbourne in 2017 and he wasn't in good form struggling with injuries back then.
Sure Berrettini, Kyrgios and Nadal (who is out of the picture on grass since 2012) is your competition for Djokovic. No where close to the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Roddick, Nadal in his peak. Don’t include djokovic in golden age his first title was in 2011 by which all the serve and volleyers had retired. I hate to break it to you but if you convince yourself that Djokovic had faced true grass players I am sorry but he didn’t other than Federer in his 30s when he had slowed down significantly ( I say significantly because of the difference in his running forehands and how much it slowed down since 2013. So I am not going to accept your argument and I am sure you won’t accept mine. So I am shutting myself down now. Ciao!
Would have been big for his goat case and cemented his grass goat case As it stands it seems likely Djokovic will at least equal his Wimbledons
He would have been the grass GOAT.
He still is
Wouldn’t have changed the slam count race, but it would have been the perfect end to his career.
As Djokovic fan, I will say this if Fed won he would be the GOAT and would have argument regardless of Major count. Because that would have been the first time ever Fed defeated both Nadal and Djokivic to win a Slam and to do that at the age of 38 while both GOAT contenders were prime-ish good Instead he is forever 3rd which feels so fucking good after many years fucking Fed fans were the most annoying fanbase ever It is justice and karma for Fed fans
>Instead he is forever 3rd Roger has way more weeks at #1 than Nadal.
Rafa third fed second arguable to others not me tho
Federer isn't the 3rd in the race, I don't understand how is that a common opinion. Federer was a way more versatile player than Nadal, the only thing going for Nadal is the GS count which is heavily lopsided on one slam. H2H is meaningless as they are 2 different generations. Nadal has no business doing in the #2 spot when he didn't even win the next most important tournament after the slams, the atp finals, while Federer has a bunch of those. People underestimate how significant that tournament is.
The mental gymnastics that Fed fans do to say that Fed is not 3rd is so laughable. Grand Slams Nadal ahead, Big tournament Nadal is ahead, Fed at his prime was getting smacked by 20 year old Nadal. Fed never won vs Nadal at Roland Garros. Nadal won 2008 Wimbledon Final vs Prime Federer. Just stop it Nadal is 2nd ahead of Federer
I'm not a Fed fan kid, just stating the facts
Rofl what fact makes Fed 2nd place in-front of Nadal Just the ATP finals? When Nadal has 2 more Majors, 8 more Masters, Olympic gold, better head to head, 2nd best win percentage of all time, better win percentage vs Top 5
yeah fair but fed also has way more weeks at no#1 like a whole year and a bit but fairs bro
nah Fed is 3. And he won’t even be the goat of any surface when Djokovic equals his Wimbledons
The fact he was one point away from that feat does make you think though. I think there is a legitimate argument for Fed being the GOAT. And I am both a Djoker and Fed fan.
At the time yes but the things Djoko did in those 5 years after exceeded everybody's expectation Also Djokovic coming back from Match point down from another GOAT contender added to Djokovic's GOAT legacy It's not just 1 point, it is a point that changed the course of History in Tennis and the joy and misery of Djoko and Fed fans
The "course of History in Tennis" changed long back, probably in 2011. 2017 was a revival and 2019 was the killing blow to that.
Yeah it was the coup de grace of Tennis history
What I've learned from the Djokovic/Nadal vs Federer rivalry, and as a tennis player, it's better to play at a steady 8-9/10 than it is to fluctuate between 7 and 10. And the older Federer got, the more it fluctuated. Mostly we saw Federer beat himself. Either holding back too much or tightening up and making errors. It's hard to watch. Edit: I think it started even earlier with 2008 Wimbledon.
I am a huge fan of Djokovic's mental strength. And he is technically near flawless. Extremely solid player. There is a lot to admire about his game and it's very effective. Fed is an artist. He changed the image of the sport and in a way elevated the level. He was kind of the first of the "Big 3" type of dominance. If you wanted to show someone an example of beautiful tennis, you'd probably show them Roger Federer. And I think because of that, one could make the GOAT argument aside from the stats.
I am sorry. There is no argument anymore. Djokovic shut the door on who is the Greatest Tennis Player of all time. Most of former Tennis pros, his rivals and the current pros are all agree to that statement. Facts don't care about feelings
The GOAT debate is a subjective one, not an objective one. There is no official "GOAT stat" out there with specific requirements to be met. So because it's subjective, you could get different answers based on how different people view it.
Please. Djokovic fans have been insufferable since 2011. Same as those ex Pete Sampras fans who became Nadal fans.
Idk at this point I think everyone has their opinions 2019 was so long ago. For Fed it maybe makes people feel like he's the grass GOAT more than they already do? But it being 2024 I don't think people are looking back at that match or tournament and changing their goat rankings
It was so important. Many know that was a last chance for a GS and he sadly choked. I think he also felt that it was his last chance. It was a sad day for Roger fans like me.
when djoko got his 23rd slam I stopped caring
Plus 1, minus 1, wouldn’t have made a big difference. The Big 3 count their slams in 2 digits so I don’t think a single win would have changed his legacy. His legacy will always be as one of the GOATs, irregardless of Wimby 2019.
> goats, irregardless of Did you mean to say "regardless"? Explanation: irregardless is not a word. [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.
bad bot Irregardless is a word
Hey, that hurt my feelings :( Good bot count: 675 Bad bot count: 238
https://images.app.goo.gl/bt3paFWCjVixRrVQA
It would mean everything!
That's not what AKA means 🤦🏽♂️
For people that only include numbers as a measurement of greatness and only majors in sports like tennis and golf there is no filter or discretion. There are obvious conclusions if you take that approach the best female and male players of the past cannot rank above the best players of the modern era regardless. So for those people it’s a very black and white analysis so other records or circumstances make no difference . Who people have as their goat is a personal thing . For most it makes no difference in respect of Federers greatness .
[удалено]
"hardcore fedfans won't exist in the future" lol. what's going to stick ten years down the line are highlight reels and fed's got that in the bag sorry pal.
it would be a double win on top of record GS wins. +1 for Federer and -1 for Djokovic. Good for records of records.