Djokovic for sure. Has 4 years on Nadal

Surely Djokovic. Just needs Wimbledon and the US to draw level with Federer. Then the next Australian to draw level with Nadal after he wins the French. Then the next Wimbledon after Nadal wins the French again. Djoko with 3 to Nadal's 1 for the next two years.

Federer had a head start with no competition for a few years. Also had a home Tory crowd at Wimbledon for his whole career. Even against Murray.

Andy Murray

Nadal will win 4 more French Opens but I can't see him winning any others. Looks like Novak will finish top.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by United we win (U19958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nadal will win another US open, no reason he can’t. Skipped last year and won the previous one in 2019 and got injured in 2018 semi and won 2017. He’s always a factor there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Novak beats him in the final every time at the US

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Yh I think nadal can still win outside the French open but I reckon he will win the next 3 French opens

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

2021:

Oz - Novak
French - Nadal
Wimbledon - Novak
US Open - Novak

Last time Nadal beat Novak in a none French Open final was in 2013.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I can see a Medvedev or someone winning the US like Thiem last year. I reckon Novak, he'll be competitive for long whilst Nadal will have injury problems then retire. Fed's best chance is at Wimby but even then he's 2nd favourite against Nole.

For the record it's 4-2 head to head for Djokovic in non-French Open finals.

USO 2010: Nadal win
Wimbledon 2011: Djokovic win
USO 2011: Djokovic win
AO 2012: Djokovic win
USO 2013: Nadal win
AO 2019: Djokovic win

Federer not even in the discussion. A fraud.

Nadal has had candy draws for YEARS.

Federer and Djokovic used to meet in the Grand Slam semis for years. Check the slams from the late 2000s and early 2010s. It's on Wikipedia

Every surface has also got slower and the balls got fluffier to benefit negative players like Djokovic and Nadal. They showed a stats on Wimbledon in 2008 and the difference between 2003 and 2008 was crazy. It used to be on YouTube and now it has been taken down.

So Nadal has basically feasted on slow surfaces for years. How many French Open wins in that? 13? Pete Sampras got 14 Slams in total. What a joke.

Djokovic only started dominating AFTER Federer and Nadal completely declined and he was left with Murray who then got injured and then he smashed the Nishikori generation. Who came after Djokovic? How many semis and finals was Djokovic losing to Federer and Nadal were at their peak?

Djokovic will end up with most slams but not sure why it's such a good thing. Sports should support attacking play, not negative play. Imagine if football started making sure all the rules were to benefit the defensive teams who park the bus? No wonder the Tennis section is dead nowadays

The head to head records in slams gives a good indication. Federer is way behind the other two on this. Federer racked up his slams before the big 2 came along, then he simply couldn't compete with the 2 best so he couldn't win as many slams anymore. Now that Nadal has declined a bit, Djokovic can win all the slams like Federer did when he had Leyton Hewitt as his main rival. Federer is seen as the Leeds of tennis. People say he plays pretty tennis and is popular but at the end of the day he only won Wimbledon so many times because he is a big server, basically actually just the Stoke of 2012 of tennis. A tory Karlovic.

Djokovic waited until Federer was over 30 before he started dominating on incredibly slow surfaces that suit his defensive game.

When Djokovic got older, who were his opposition? Nishikori? Dmitrov? Raonic?

He was number 3 and waited for others to decline and then had a terrible generation of players who he has smashed on favourable surfaces that suit his defensive game where he stands miles behind the baseline.

You can enjoy it all you like but don’t be surprised when the only people watching defensive tennis are housewives and stay at home Dads. Nobody would watch football to see teams park the bus every week.

Federer's Karlovic lite serving has hardly been entertaining. It's the only reason he wins Wimbledon, because it's a 19th century surface that favours incredibly limited tennis players like the big servers. Federer can even get away with his 80s back hand due to his boring serving.

One handed backhands are performed by real men, double handed backhands were mainly for the girls who didn't have enough power. Even Graf had a single handed backhand.

Djokovic winning so many trophies playing defensive tennis is like if Greece won all the World Cups and Euros since 2004 playing the brand of football that they played.

Tennis was a proper man's sport with fast serving, volleying, different surfaces. However, the change of conditions made it like the women's game. Double handed backhands, slow serves, minimal volleys and slow surfaces.

You I assume are a massive fan of women's tennis and women's sport in general right? That's your preference and your right, but female sports don't make that much money, so don't be surprised if people lose interest in Tennis.

Federer's style would have been suited to the 70s when they had wooden rackets and had pints and pies before the games. Now players are athletes and have six packs and biceps, not like pencil arms Federer who doesn't even have a six pack. Pete Sampras was another Federer. Limited tennis player but just did big serves on grass at Wimbledon. I have a one handed backhand but it limits me so don't see it as a positive. It's like a pro footballer not being able to use both feet.

I have a one handed backhand too, it looks much more graceful and great for stretching and volleying too. The last time I struggled to have enough power on my backhand was when I was 5.