Federer 2004-2006 vs Nadal 2008/2010 vs Djokovic 2011

[Saarbrigga]

If you compare those guys at their prime, who do you think is the best overall?

My point would be like this, a scale from 0-10 on different surfaces:

Federer:
Hardcourt: 10 (he won a record 9 GS on hard)
Grass: 10 (because of his 6 Wimby and 5 Halle titles)
Clay: 9 (because of his 1 RG victory + 4 finals)

Nadal:
Hardcourt: 7 (cause he won just 2 majors there)
Grass: 9 (2 titles, 3 final defeats, overall 5 finals)
Clay: 10 (maybe 11, best of the best)

Djokovic:
Hardcourt: 9 (3 AO titles, 1 USO)
Grass: 8 (1 Wimby title)
Clay: 8 (at the moment 1 RG final)


I guess the Federer 04-06 was the best hardcourt player ever (slow and fast hard courts), one of the best grass court players ever, and i guess top 10 all time on clay as well (just behind Rafa, Borg, Vilas, Guga and 1-2 others).

Nadal is the Nr. 1 on clay ever, and Djokovic one of the best all rounders ever.


Your thoughts?

[Moralspain]

I agree with you

Federer the one on hard and grass, and Nadal the one on clay. That's what the stats say, which are the only way (objectively) to say who is the best at something, with stats.
Nole still a long way to go to be the best ever at something ( according to the stats), and as i mentioned stats are the only way to make an objective statement, the rest are just opinions

[Zeppelin]

Agree with both of you, just that I don't think Nole is already at his best...

[Corbon]

I think Federer's turning point was when he lost against Nadal at Wimbledon '08 and also lost his No. 1 ranking for the first time. His best years were 2004-2007 when he won 42 tournaments (more than 50% total). After Wimbledon '08 and with the emergence of Nole the dominance started shifting towards Rafa and Nole.

Federer's best season was 2006: 92-5 matches, 12-4 tournaments (3 Slams)
Nadal's best season was 2008: 82-11 matches, 8-2 tournaments (2 Slams)
Nole's best season was 2011: 70-6 matches, 10-1 tournaments (3 Slams)

Statistically, Nadal's breakthrough season 2005 was his best but he only won 1 Slam back then.

Overall Federer has been the most consistant player of the Open Era.

[Saarbrigga]

Federer the one on hard and grass, and Nadal the one on clay.

Not exactly. The best:

Clay -> Nadal (7 French Open titles)
Grass -> Sampras (7 Wimbledon titles)
Hard -> Federer (5 US, 4 AUS Open titles)

[TomBs]

I agree with you

Federer the one on hard and grass, and Nadal the one on clay. That's what the stats say, which are the only way (objectively) to say who is the best at something, with stats.
Nole still a long way to go to be the best ever at something ( according to the stats), and as i mentioned stats are the only way to make an objective statement, the rest are just opinions

Don't agree with you on that. Imagine that in future there are like 3 players way better than Nadal ever was/will be on clay, but they end up dividing all the tournaments between them. Statswise they'll look worse than Nadal, while everyone may agree on how they would make Nadal look like an amateur.


Right now yeah, Nadal best on clay, Fed on hard, you could argue for Sampras on grass, and the allround would be Fed, not Nole.

[Rob ITST]

Not exactly. The best:

Clay -> Nadal (7 French Open titles)
Grass -> Sampras (7 Wimbledon titles)
Hard -> Federer (5 US, 4 AUS Open titles)

Laver won 9 on grass - 3 Aus Open, 4 Wimbledon, 2 US Open.

[Corbon]

Emerson even won 10 on grass (most of them in the absense of Laver though). But when 3 of the 4 Slams are played on grass, it's much easier for the players to get accustomed to every tournament. Also back then there were as many S&V players as there are baseliners today.

[Moralspain]

hard to compare different eras, i mean you can compare Agassi-Federer, but in my opinion we can not compare Laver, Emerson who, in my opinion played an amateur tennis (don't mean to hurt anyones's feelings) playing wooden racquets, no training at all etc, against players like Federer and Nadal etc with coaches, nutritionists, psychologists, latest technology etc

[Corbon]

Yeah if we compare players, we should exclude everything that happened before 1968 or maybe even later when the first official rankings were established. Still it's ridiculous to place a Federer ahead of a Navratilova, Evert or Graf (if we include doubles results, the gap would be even wider).

[djarvik]

hard to compare different eras, i mean you can compare Agassi-Federer, but in my opinion we can not compare Laver, Emerson who, in my opinion played an amateur tennis (don't mean to hurt anyones's feelings) playing wooden racquets, no training at all etc, against players like Federer and Nadal etc with coaches, nutritionists, psychologists, latest technology etc

I agree with you here.

The only thing we can compare, is how did they do within their environment, competition, and here you have to say they were better then Roger is today on grass. You cannot compare them to each other, but you sure as hell can compare their achievements within their playing time.

[Rob ITST]

It's an endless discussion. Rod Laver once commented that the pre-match meal of choice was usually steak and potatoes - stuff many pros would probable never touch today. Now they recover in ice baths, and hyperbaric chambers. No comparison.

I'm getting a bit sick of all the "greatest ever" talk. People think we're in some "Golden Era". Here's a list of reasons that, in my eyes, the accomplishments of Federer and Nadal are not as significant as people make them out to be.

Winning Roland Garros is easier now than it has ever been. Laver, when asked if Sampras had to win RG to be the greatest ever, said something like: "In my day there were about 5 clay specialists that I had to worry about. Now (in the 90's) there are about 50". IMO, that number is back to 5 again. It's mostly due the Spaniards and Argentines, who were once almost all clay specialists, and now (for the better imo) are much more all-court oriented.

Winning Wimbledon is easier than ever. The courts are slower, and again, there are no grass-court specialists. You don't even have to serve big or come to net anymore (which Borg did when he played on grass).

The two examples above make winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon back-to-back easier than ever - by far. It's no longer a huge adjustment to be made in 2 weeks. You can pretty much play the same way on either surface.

And last, but certainly not least: Tennis is just simply easier than ever - skill wise. Any good athlete can excel with the larger head frames and poly strings. The things the top guys do today was just impossible before. Sampras and Agassi could get about 2000 RPM on their groundstrokes. Djokovic averages around 3300, and Nadal has been clocked at around 5000. The margin of error that gives you is freaking HUGE. People thought graphite racquets were revolutionary, but I think it's nothing compared to the poly strings. Not only do the strings allow more spin, but it's been amplified by the type of racquet they allow players to use. Not very long ago, top players could have never gotten the control they needed with these frames - the poly unlocked their true potential. I'm confident that in the next 10 years, we're going to see players take things to an entirely new level - these will be the guys who grew up with this equipment. We're going to look back at today's players and realize they were not quite as spectacular as everyone thought.

I do believe that Federer and Nadal are two of the all time greats. Nadal may even be the greatest clay court player ever - I'm still undecided if he is that good on clay, or if he's just today's only true clay-court player. Djokovic still has to prove it to me - sorry, but a couple of good years doesn't make you an all-time great.

I think it's just a bit naive to start putting them ahead of the likes of Sampras, Borg, and Laver. Equal? Yes, but not better. Besides, how do we really know they're even that good - maybe everyone else is just that bad. Maybe they win so many Slams because they're that great, but it could also just be that no one else is good enough. There's a lot of great athletes in the game today, but I don't think there are many who have the mental and emotional toughness to play their best when it matters most (Murray, the top 3's closest rival, is a perfect example).

Rant over.

[Moralspain]

[C4iLL]

For me the hierarchy is quite simple :

1) Federer = Djokovic on Hard Court = the best players ever on hard courts (10 points)
Nadal comes after in a big group of players, like Agassi, Sampras, Lendl etc. (9 points)

2) Sampras is the best player ever on grass (10 points). Federer is the second one. (9 points)
Borg, Nadal Mcenroe, Becker, Edberg come after in a second group. (8 points).
Djokovic comes in a third group with other good guys like Rafter/Ivanisevic/Hewitt/Nalbandian... (7 points)

3) Nadal is the best player ever on clay. (10 points) The second are guys like Kuerten, Wilanders, Muster. (9 points)
Come after Djokovic with Courrier and all the spanishes : Moya/Costa/Berasategui etc. (8 points)
And in a fourth group, I put Federer, with people like Chang, and other single winners of RG : Gaudio, Ferrero, and so on. (7 points)

--> For me Federer is less good than Djokovic on clay, because he beat too rarely Nadal on clay at his best whereas Djokovic beat him several times there. Fed also lost against Kuerten on clay in 2004.

So if you take only Nadal/Djoko/Fed :

Nadal = 9 + 8 + 10 = 27
Federer = 10 + 9 + 7 = 26
Djokovic = 10 + 7 + 8 = 25

I tried to be objective to design that hierarchy, but everything can be discussed (for instance : Sampras at his best was maybe less good than Fed at his best on grass, it can be discussed I don't know).