Jump to content

Who is the greatest of the BIG 3 in tennis?  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is the greatest of the BIG 3 in tennis?

    • Roger Federer
    • Rafael Nadal
    • Novak Djokovic


Recommended Posts

Posted

Grand Slam Counts (so far)

Federer - 17

Nadal - 14

Djokovic - 12

 

The most likely to win more slams out of these 3 is Djokovic. 

 

Now, why I ask this question is - while Federer won some easy slams earlier in his career when the compeition wasn't as tight, Djokovic had a really hard entry since Nadal and Federer were already very dominant at that time. Also, Djokovic currently has a winning record against Nadal, Federer and Murray. 

 

v/s Nadal: 26-23

v/s Federer: 23-22 (won't be surprised if he makes that tiny lead even more over the rest of his career)

v/s Murray: 24-10

 

He also beat Nadal in the French Open in straight sets and has held all 4 Grand Slams at the same time (a feat both Nadal and Federer could not accomplish). 

 

His current lead at the top of the ATP rankings is such that he has double the points of the next guy. I don't think I have ever seen such a huge discrepancy in the rankings before. 

 

So, is Djokovic the greatest of the BIG 3?

Posted

Current ATP rankings:

1. Djokovic - 16,150 points

2. Murray - 8,435 points

3. Federer - 7,015 points

 

Add up no.2 and no.3 points and still they won't get to Djokovic's tally. 

 

Now, with the French Open win, that gap is probably going to get wider. 

Posted (edited)

I think He needs to at least match Rafas slam count before the discussion can begin - seems set to happen sooner rather than later- those three are the best three ever though

Edited by Sooda
Posted
On June 6, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Sooda said:

I think He needs to at least match Rafas slam count before the discussion can begin - seems set to happen sooner rather than later- those three are the best three ever though

At the rate at which he is going right now, it might even happen by end of this year. 

Posted

He is ruling the roost with Warwinka and Murray as his closest opponents, along with an over the hill Federer and a brittl+ injury prone Nadal....Enough said

 

No where near the golden era of tennis in the 90's and 80's.

 

So No Novak Djokovic might be a top 10 material of all time but that's about it

Posted
14 hours ago, maniac said:

He is ruling the roost with Warwinka and Murray as his closest opponents, along with an over the hill Federer and a brittl+ injury prone Nadal....Enough said

 

No where near the golden era of tennis in the 90's and 80's.

 

So No Novak Djokovic might be a top 10 material of all time but that's about it

Federer and Nadal are fading now. They were the real force when he entered and he had still beaten them and won grand slams when their peak. No matter what the era is, someone players will always be on the decline and some new players will be emerging. DJokovic emerged when Federer and Nadal were hitting peaks.

Posted

It would it  would be tough say who is the best , but he close to one if not the best 

 

I think  Novak had tough at the start as he had to deal with Federer and Nadal in initial years specially Federer being so consistent made him it tough  and  made him better player  , I think now it will depend how long can Novak carry at this level  Couple of  more years of this with this consistency probably you would probably put Novak on top other 2 

Posted (edited)
On 6/7/2016 at 0:05 AM, Sooda said:

I think He needs to at least match Rafas slam count before the discussion can begin - seems set to happen sooner rather than later- those three are the best three ever though

 

Slam count doesn't mean much as there could be some they got lucky and won a couple of them without much of a challenge. But domination-wise, I think Novak has already surpassed Nadal, and his domination in the last 2 years is akin to Roger's during 2004-2008. Nadal never had the sense of invincibility around him even when he won slams. He is always vulnerable with the kind of physical play. But, in terns of watching the game, I would rate Nadal, Fed and Novak in that order.

Edited by coffee_rules
Posted
On 6/10/2016 at 8:40 AM, maniac said:

He is ruling the roost with Warwinka and Murray as his closest opponents, along with an over the hill Federer and a brittl+ injury prone Nadal....Enough said

 

No where near the golden era of tennis in the 90's and 80's.

 

So No Novak Djokovic might be a top 10 material of all time but that's about it

The 80s and 90s was not the golden era of mens tennis. I watched tennis all through the 90s and Sampras for the most part dominated without much of a challenge. Andre Agassi, my favorite tennis player of all time was topsy turvy throughout the 90s and was the nearest challenger for Sampras. Even the legends from the 80s like McEnroe accept that what tennis witnessed in the last 10 years (2005 to 2015) was indeed the golden era of mens tennis. 

 

In contrast womens tennis probably experienced their golden era towards the mid to late 80s when you had two established players - Navratilova and Evert competing fiercely and a young Steffi Graf challenging them, who herself was challenged by the even younger Monica Seles. 

Posted

Its a shame that only challenger to Djokovic have been Andy Murray. There is no 3-4 year younger player who have been threatening challenging Djokovic. To Federer the challenger was Nadal and to Nadal challenger have been Djokovic.

 

 

Still waiting for someone to appear on court. Mens tennis is going down the drain. It hardly any exciting.

Posted
9 hours ago, mishra said:

Its a shame that only challenger to Djokovic have been Andy Murray. There is no 3-4 year younger player who have been threatening challenging Djokovic. To Federer the challenger was Nadal and to Nadal challenger have been Djokovic.

 

 

Still waiting for someone to appear on court. Mens tennis is going down the drain. It hardly any exciting.

This was the same logic used for Sampras vs Federer debate  that Sampras had so many challengers while Federer  has very few

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Singh bling said:

This was the same logic used for Sampras vs Federer debate  that Sampras had so many challengers while Federer  has very few

Sampras had Agassi, Federer had Nadal, On his day Agassi played better than Federer. Between Nadal and Agassi, its difficult to choose but watching Nadal against Federer used to be like watching a superheavy weight boxing bout  boxer , no matter how many punches you throw he will seems to be punching back. Agassi didnt had this trait. Hence its Federer for me and then Sampras.

Federer days are long gone, I remember few years back Boris Becker talking of his retirement but because of no competitor he is still in top 4.

 

Edited by mishra
×
×
  • Create New...