Borg retired way to early too.

It’s just such an incredible era for men’s tennis.

It’s going to be so boring without Roger and Rafa.

I’m not sure these youngsters really have the consistence or ability to dominate for stretches.

Going to be 4-5 number ones throughout the season like the women.

One thing I can think of is that players probably used to do a lot of fitness training back then that would've been very detrimental in the long run. Things like road running, and poorly designed or nonexistant strength training routines.

Food and recovery massive too.

Plus putting bread on your stomach, not in it, on it.

It's a touch of everything. Better training, diet, rest recovery models (look at their season planning), strength and conditioning. Better doctors/surgeons. Look at LeBron/Ronaldo. Obviously drugs are being hinted at there and yes PEDs abound but they definitely did in the 90's as well. So it's just another factor rather than the factor.

So then I assume everyone expects a widening of the average elite window in men's tennis? So where Federer has gone over the past decade, Nadal and Djokovic are likely to follow. And we can start expecting 15 - 20 year careers as opposed to the ~decade careers that used to be typical for elite players.

That will significantly alter records / stats / etc if it becomes the case.

its also possible that there just wont be a generation like this one for a while. i mean its the 3 best tennis players of all time ... at the same time. crazy!

Rafa beat Federed consistentlyin Federer's prime.

To some extent, but part of their longevity stems from young people sucking and if young people don't suck as much in future they will retire older guys more quickly.

Roger would have retired 5 years ago if two 20 year old Novak and Nadal types came along and were smoking everyone.

Because he won consistently on clay .(14-2 for Rafa)
Rafa is the goat on clay and by far .
But tennis is not just about clay surfaces and I would take Federer overall.
Regardless time changes and so the debate is not over until the top 3 retires .

While diet, training, etc. definitely have an effect, I think it's mostly this. GOATs are GOATs because they are outliers, tennis just happens to have 3 playing at the same time. Once these guys retire I doubt we'll see the same level of consistent high quality play for at least 10 years. I see most slams in that period being like the 2014 US open when Cilic won.

I hear the GOAT is GOAT argument and therefore this trio are outliers, but I do struggle with it a little. Tennis has fundamental physical demands at its base. Obviously it is assumed for elite players to varying extents, and it is their technical mastery, decision making, and mental toughness that separate them. But Roger Federer is going to be 38 when he takes the court in flushing meadows this year. And he's going to be beating world class players over 5 sets, even if he won't win the tournament overall. That means he's hanging at the fundamental physical side still, and all those improvements in strength and conditioning, load management, nutrition, etc are available to all of these world class players too.

I just don't know whether it's just goat like qualities, and we'll know more in a half decade to help discuss it in a more definitive way.

For what it's worth, I think it's clear that we can expect longer careers from the elite players going forward. For lesser player, not so much. It's one thing to dip a tiny bit and go from being number 1 to top 10 with a chance to win, it's another to go from number 50 to number 300 or whatever.

Nadal has a head to head advantage on Federer on outdoor hard courts too. They've only played 3 times on grass.

Also these 3 are just world's better than anyone else that has played. Young people have no idea what they are seeing. Tennis was so terrible before Federer.

"Same longevity" lol Fed's first and last GS title are only 6 months further apart than Nadal's. If Nadal wins the French next year he'll have him covered. You can't give Fed props for being good while so old and not give Nadal props for being good so young.

I feel like whenever people say "On Clay it's obviously Nadal but overall Fed/Djok" by "overall" they really mean "on stuff other than Clay", just ignoring his ridiculous dominance when really it should still get 1/3 weighting. Like to me, the best player of all time is whoever would be favourite in a best of 3 matches, one on each surface, peak vs peak. For me it's between Nadal and Djok, Djok would be slight favourite on hard and grass but a decent dog on clay so not sure who would be favourite overall. I lean Nadal.

Nadal is unlucky that he's unbeatable on 1/3 of surfaces but it only makes up 1/4 of GS's or he'd have the Grand Slam record easily

WIMBLEDON! Let us Tennis!

Do you play the hard court in Australia or Miami? Or indoor? Where Rafa has historically struggled? (I don't mean struggled but couldn't think of a better word, maybe weaker?).

Do you play it in a gale where Roger/Novak struggle but Rafa storms it.

Do you play it on fast grass courts the way they use to be or the slowed down version of today.

Theres loads of factors involved rather than just saying best of three on the three surfaces.

Bring back carpet!

its 14-2 for nadal on clay with a record HU for Nadal 24-15 in total...
its end up anywhere else ,not on clay, for federer 13-10.

i just dont get your point.
its close and not over but OVERALL i take federer cause overall it aint about clay.

Will see if nadal and djok can perform great to surpass feder in grand slam pass 35 like federer does even near 38 !

Rogers also won 3 different slams 5 times.

Won >10 hard and 8 grass. To Rafas 4 hard and 2 grass. Rogers been in 5 french open finals including 4 in a row. Thats more than Novak - it feels like you bash Rafa when you compare that but it's feels wrong too.

Indoor it's 5-1 Roger.

I don't like the h2h as games might not be match ups theres always weird and wonderful things is sport.

Becker > Courier but lost to Goran. Blade > Davydenko but Davydenko having a winning record against Rafa. GOAT Safin beating Novak then saying how is he #3, novak didn't even get a set of him. Karlo v Novak Roddick > Novak etc etc

Theres loads of weird ones like that.

I know this technically is off topic, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Sometimes people bring up Murray vs Wawrinka, as each has 3 grand slam titles (although Murray also has an Olympic gold medal). I saw this on an SI tennis column today:

Major finals: Murray leads 11-4

Major semifinals: Murray 21-9

Masters 1000 titles: Murray 14-1 (!)

Masters 1000 semis: Murray 21-4

Weeks at No. 1: Murray 41-0 (Stan's career high is No. 3)

Murray's record against the Big 3 is a not terrible 29-56.

Wawrinka's record against the Big 3 is—brace yourself—11-60.

Murray also has a tour final.

I seem to recall Stan saying something along the lines of Murray is way better, I’ve not got near #1. That was when Murray finally got the #1 ranking.

Murray still plays tennis? I actually forgot about him.

Australia should be treated as just another major when analyzing. If you drop it, Rafa is clear Goat.

Roland Garos should be treated as a Masters 1000. If you drop it, Rafa is clear just another guy that binked a few Grand Slams.