This entry is now closed for comments.
@157 Nole I'll give you, but Murray? He's rarely been a threat to Nadal
@155 "Laver lost many of his best years when he became a professional"Laver won 6 GS including 4 in '62 as an amateur when a lot of great players were in the pro rank. Ken Rosewall wiped the floor with him in 63 & did the pro slam, so if Rosewall wud've been allowed to compete pre 63, who's to say Laver wud've won those 6 GS? U cant have it both ways. I dont buy it (Laver the greatest) at all!
Well played Rafa.However, that’s the easiest route to a winning a slam Ive ever seen. His main rivals either withdrew beforehand or weren't in great shape during the event.Yes, you can only beat want is in front of you but even with that in mind, his road to glory was that of a Masters 500 event.Let's see how he gets on when Mole & Murray are fit again n.yearStill, respect.
Well done Rafa - amazing player!
Laver didn't win more than 12 GS titles? Laver lost many of his best years when he became a professional, and could not play the slams. He grand slammed - all four in same year - in his last year as an amateur, and years later came back as a pro and grand slammed again. He remains possibly the best player I have ever seen. You can't compare.
@149 @145It also depends on how much you prioritise slams. For example djok only just shades nadal in overall head to heads whereas in slams, which players tend to save their absolute best for, nadal heavily comes out trumps
I can't understand how Anderson couldn't ace Nadal with wide serves when Nadal was soooooooooooo far behind the baseline???
@65. Linds No way, Grand-slams need to be best of 5 sets, not best of 3, otherwise how would the grand slams be seen as special compared to the other tournaments.Solution to lessening the wear and tear of players - speed up the courts !!
149. Absolutely true - it's not overwhelming, but he's still beat them more times than he's lost, and that's a fact. It's no easy feat to get your nose ahead when the opposition is so ridiculously stiff, so it says plenty about Novak's ability when on top form. What a great era for rivalry we're living in though - the best of my lifetime.
147. Yes, it's a difficult one to call, as you say. With each player meeting in peak form and injury-free, I, in turn, agree with you that Novak probably edges it - and that's why he has a winning record against ALL of them. That's an incredibly difficult thing to do, given all these players' outstanding tennis abilities. As I said in a much earlier post, it's all about personal opinion only.
@145 To be fair his head to head over Fed and Rafa is hardly overwhelming
146. Damned right. Bjorn Borg (my hero) was sublime, yet packed-up tennis at his prime, in his mid-20's. Even then, he'd already clocked-up 11 Grand Slams. Would he have been as great in today's game? We'll never know one way or the other. Players can only be 'great' in their own era, so comparisons are futile. Enjoy today's fantastic rivalries while we can - we'll miss them all when it's over.
145. I understand that. My point is that most people will say Fed is the undisputed GOAT when in reality all 3 have a very strong case. I do feel Djokovic needs a couple more slams to be really in the mix, but in terms of who would win when all at their best im inclined to agree with you, Novak might just have the edge as reluctant as I am to admit
@141 Well guess what Laver didn't win more than 12 singles slams so suck it up.I wish people would stop comparing champions, they are greats and so many reasons why you can't compare era's
143. With respect, statistics can be used to prove anything. If Rafa is 'GOAT' in your eyes, then fine. However, check the stats and you'll see Djokovic has an overall winning record against Federer, Murray, Wawrinka AND Nadal. Using that as a yardstick, he's clearly the true 'GOAT' because he's top of the shop when it comes to the world's biggest tennis showdowns.
A genuinely nice guy and a great competitor too. Not sure he has the legs to surpass Federer's slam but if he does that would be amazing, and if he doesn't he is still one of the all time greats.
Great win by one of the great champions, once again proving that he isnt just a clay court master. As much as i admire Fed (if you like tennis you cant dislike fed), i think nadal might have an even stronger case to be GOAT:In slams he is 9-3 vs Fed and 9-4 vs Djok, as well as 8-2 vs murray.Add into the mix that for all 16 of his slams hes had at least one of these competing, mostly all 3
oscarmcmc and Finkelstein agree with both your comments. Rafa's a true great in sport, not just tennis, and I believe he would've been in any sport he chose to follow. Regardless of liking Federer or not, can his followers really imagine him at the top of any other sport (maybe golf!)? Rafa's a fantastic athlete and that, as much as anything, will imo help him extend his career not hinder it!
Laver won more titles than Fed and Rafa put together. He won 2 Grand Slams, which neither Fed nor Rafa have done once. Very likely that he would have blown away Fed's Slams total if he had been allowed to compete between 62 and 68.But he only won £1.5m! Fed and Rafa should give him some of their money.
We're having some problems displaying the comments at the moment. Sorry. We're doing our best to fix it.
You must sign in to rate comments