Similar to Connors-Borg-McEnroe-Lendl of 70s-80s. Those guys basically traded #1 from 1974-1989.

Of the last 783 weeks, 742 of them had either Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, or Novak Djokovic as the number 1 tennis player in the world. Andy Murray had the other 41 weeks.

Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg, and Ivan Lendl combined for 797 weeks out of 817 at #1 from 29 July 1974 to 12 August 1990. Easy trivia question: Which player was #1 for the other 20 weeks?

It's so laughable that Fed slurpers have backed themselves into such a corner by blindly sorting by slams with no regard for context that now they are so shook Vak is a favorite to >Fed.

It shouldn't matter whether Novak ends up with 18-22. Hes the same ****ing player either way. You people are idiots.


Btw hes better than Federer.

Got laughed at for years by a bunch of sheep

But was true then and true now
Novak goat

I've argued that overall, Federer has had the better career but his peak wasn't as high as Nadal or Joker. As of right now, I stand by it but to say that Nadal or Joker are unable to surpass Fed in the future is silly.

So far Fed = GOAT, in future it could (and would probably end up being) Joker or Nadal.

Definitely won't be Nadal

I think people assume Djoker is just gonna steamroll but he's old and will breakdown like every other tennis player besides the GOAT

And if he stays healthy, and does have Feds longevity then he prolly will be the GOAT, but that's a long way off and never been done prior to Fed

I guess Nastase was before that period, so the answer must be Wilander.

My first tennis racquet was a Wilander one

Fed and Novak got kids. TNG gonna be ready to go soon.

Fed is GOAT, not using Slams as a source. His longevity, impact on the game and overall quality of play over his entire career still has not been matched by Nadal or Djoker. His ability to devour his competition without breaking so much as a sweat is currently unmatched. The grace with which he carries himself around the court is a thing of beauty. Don't get it twisted, Fed created his toughest competition, Fed pushed these two to try and find ways to solve him. He made them better because he's that damn good. He changed the way the game was approached entirely because he had an unbelievable run of domination. Rafa and Djoker are wonderful consolation prizes and part of a golden ers of tennis but neither is the GOAT. When these two are winning tournaments at the age he has then come talk to me. Likely they will be retired at 37 so at this point you have no other choice but to DEAL!

I'm not sure if Djokovic and Nadal would even be in this conversation if they all used similar racquets their entire careers. Federer at 36 won 3 slams in a span of just over a year and wasn't far off peak Djoker/Nadal once the massive racquet advantage was neutralized. This idea that these three are close historically may be an illusion created by the fact that for much of the time they competed against one another, Federer was using a laughably inferior equipment due in large part to him having gotten used to outdated equipment from a different era that was no longer competitive, yet being so absurdly better than everyone else that it wasn't easy to justify a switch. Given the boost here - he was more successful in 2014-2018 than 2010-2013 despite being 4 years older and needing time to readjust. In 16 Grand Slams from 2010 to 2013, he won just 2 and made another final, with all three of those finals appearances coming in 2010/2011. In his next 16 GS after the switch, he won 3 and made 3 more finals.

Djok will become GOAT if he can dethrone Nadal at French and win his share of the other GS events thru 2022, likely surpassing Federer in the process. That will give him the GS double along with the Djok slam, and a GS triple if he can win French twice more, certainly in the cards. The only career feat of distinction he won't have is career wins, he needs 36 more (Connors 109), which Federer still has a chance to eclipse. An impressive resume unmatched by anyone.

Tldr if Vak wins the French he is undisputed GOAT

Djokovic and Nadal are both better than Federer. Nadal has a singular achievement, unparalleled in damn near all of sports (complete and total domination of the french open for 11 (talk about longevity) years), and has consistently beaten Federer head to head. Djokovic is simply better than either of them, and with a shorter career only a few slams behind.

nadal went out of the french open 2009 in a fixed match..

I like him even better now.

Nice to see the Vak fans still trolling in here. Someday maybe they'll even believe their own BS.

I mean, don't get me wrong, he's still got a chance, so just lmk

He's won the last 3 grand slams, and he has a winning head to record vs Rafa and vs Fed.

Meanwhile people ITT are claiming Fed is the greatest ever, which always makes for an interesting explanation to non-tennis people.

"You see, there are three people in the conversation, and one of those people has a losing record vs both the other two. But don't worry, he's the best of the bunch."

H2H records is a really bad argument.

Player A: winner of 10 Grand Slams
Player B: winner of 0 Grand Slams

Player B has a 10-0 H2H record against Player A.

Who is the greater player?

Fed fans ITT legit gonna need to be on suicide watch if Vak wins the French

That improves Novak's case but say he does it and doesn't beat Nadal yawn

Number of slams is a really bad argument.

Player A: winner of 20 Grand Slams
Player B: winner of 15 Grand Slams

Player A won the vast majority of their slams playing vs sub par competition.
Player B won the vast majority of theirs playing vs the toughest competition tennis has ever seen.

Who is the greater player?

The problem with head to head is the age difference. Most of Djoker's head to head with Roger were played nearer to Djoker's prime than Fed's.

Djoker vs Nadal head to head is more meaningful since those two are pretty close in age.

We know what you're doing

Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzalez, Philippoussis and Soderling.

Out of 20 majors you can argue the quality of 4 Grand Slam opponents in finals? The other 16 he beat Grand Slam champs. If we also look at those 4 and I'm too young to remember the Philipoussis match. Baggy, Gonzo and Soderling were all on extreme heaters and playing insane quality. Fed made swiss cheese of them.

Kiss the ring! Your post is so amateur it makes me sick.

Phillipoussis was actually pretty good, but certainly not great. He made another GS final. Actually, of the four you listed, and completely off the top of my head, I'd say he was a higher quality opponent than any of the others (of course I'm going by body of work and discounting any sort of heater effect).

Basically he had an Isner-like serve and unlike Isner, wasn't awful at everything else.

I'd say that's a little bit tougher final opponent than either Tsonga or K. Anderson, who were two of Djoker's victims.