Only last year 10.4m people watched the World Cup final at the same time the men's singles final was on, whereas for example in 2005 at peak Ashes fever (the last day of the 4th test, Hoggard and Giles etc), the Channel 4 audience peaked at 8.4m.
England's Cricket World Cup final win over New Zealand was watched by a peak of 7.9m across Channel Four and Sky.
the men's game is so predictable a t m.. 'the big 3' are getting near the end (surely) and there is no heir apparent is sight .. the women's game is much more open, any of ten or a dozen are well capable of winning the majors
If Nadal equals Federer, can Federer fans still call him GOAT?
I think so.
Federer is the overall greatest. Nadal is (quite obviously) the greatest on clay.
But Nadal has won 2 Wimbledons, 4 US and 1 Aussie. Most of his slams have been on Clay but then Federer only won once on clay...?
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are all great champions who have won all 4 slams. We may have our preference, but the numbers are close enough to make it very hard to say whether one is better than the others, especially as Nadal and Djokovic are younger and thus started later (and so should be behind at this stage on numbers to Federer)
If Nadal equals Federer, can Federer fans still call him GOAT?
I think so.
Federer is the overall greatest. Nadal is (quite obviously) the greatest on clay.
But Nadal has won 2 Wimbledons, 4 US and 1 Aussie. Most of his slams have been on Clay but then Federer only won once on clay...?
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are all great champions who have won all 4 slams. We may have our preference, but the numbers are close enough to make it very hard to say whether one is better than the others, especially as Nadal and Djokovic are younger and thus started later (and so should be behind at this stage on numbers to Federer)
Thats not the point, the assertion was that Nadal won most of his slams on clay so somehow Federer's overall record is better when actually Nadal has won Wimbledon twice and 5 hard court slams. Also Federer only triumphed once on clay so I think the overall is similar. Federer has dominated on grass, Nadal on clay.
I think there's a strong argument that winning at Roland Garros then at Wimbledon the same year is extremely difficult being so close together, especially for a clay court specialist
One could also argue Djokovic is the most versatile being neither a grass, clay or hard court specialist and held all 4 slams at the same time
If Nadal equals Federer, can Federer fans still call him GOAT?
I think so.
Federer is the overall greatest. Nadal is (quite obviously) the greatest on clay.
But Nadal has won 2 Wimbledons, 4 US and 1 Aussie. Most of his slams have been on Clay but then Federer only won once on clay...?
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are all great champions who have won all 4 slams. We may have our preference, but the numbers are close enough to make it very hard to say whether one is better than the others, especially as Nadal and Djokovic are younger and thus started later (and so should be behind at this stage on numbers to Federer)
Thats not the point, the assertion was that Nadal won most of his slams on clay so somehow Federer's overall record is better when actually Nadal has won Wimbledon twice and 5 hard court slams. Also Federer only triumphed once on clay so I think the overall is similar. Federer has dominated on grass, Nadal on clay.
I think there's a strong argument that winning at Roland Garros then at Wimbledon the same year is extremely difficult being so close together, especially for a clay court specialist
One could also argue Djokovic is the most versatile being neither a grass, clay or hard court specialist and held all 4 slams at the same time
All fair points but also show why it’s kind of pointless trying to crown one or the other the greatest ever. What we can say is they are three of the very best ever and we have been very lucky to get watch them all at the same time. Any one of them could have two or three times the number of titles if it wasn’t for the other two being around as well.
What I’m also happy to finally see is one of the young guns seriously challenge one of these three in a grand slam final. There needs to be a changing of the guard at some point and men’s tennis is in danger of entering a barren period with no real stars once F, N & D retire.
If Nadal equals Federer, can Federer fans still call him GOAT?
I think so.
Federer is the overall greatest. Nadal is (quite obviously) the greatest on clay.
But Nadal has won 2 Wimbledons, 4 US and 1 Aussie. Most of his slams have been on Clay but then Federer only won once on clay...?
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are all great champions who have won all 4 slams. We may have our preference, but the numbers are close enough to make it very hard to say whether one is better than the others, especially as Nadal and Djokovic are younger and thus started later (and so should be behind at this stage on numbers to Federer)
Thats not the point, the assertion was that Nadal won most of his slams on clay so somehow Federer's overall record is better when actually Nadal has won Wimbledon twice and 5 hard court slams. Also Federer only triumphed once on clay so I think the overall is similar. Federer has dominated on grass, Nadal on clay.
I think there's a strong argument that winning at Roland Garros then at Wimbledon the same year is extremely difficult being so close together, especially for a clay court specialist
One could also argue Djokovic is the most versatile being neither a grass, clay or hard court specialist and held all 4 slams at the same time
Not just slams though, Federer has won over 100 titles, and has also won 6 tour finals too.
Nadal and Djokovic have less but admittedly they still have years on their side.
Also more than half of Nadal's career titles have been on clay, hence i just feel his complete dominance on one surface doesn't make him better overall than Federer.
Comments
2 British against 2 French in round one for the men today
Good win for Dan Evans over Adrian Mannarino 3-1
Cameron Norrie is a set down to Gregoire Barrere.
On the womens side
Jo Konta beat Daria Kasatkina 2-1
The women's game is full of players who win a Grand Slam then slump afterwards
Now has 19 grand slams and is only 1 behind Federer.
Federer is the overall greatest. Nadal is (quite obviously) the greatest on clay.
Federer has done well to win so many against his younger compatriots....
I think there's a strong argument that winning at Roland Garros then at Wimbledon the same year is extremely difficult being so close together, especially for a clay court specialist
One could also argue Djokovic is the most versatile being neither a grass, clay or hard court specialist and held all 4 slams at the same time
What I’m also happy to finally see is one of the young guns seriously challenge one of these three in a grand slam final. There needs to be a changing of the guard at some point and men’s tennis is in danger of entering a barren period with no real stars once F, N & D retire.
Nadal and Djokovic have less but admittedly they still have years on their side.
Also more than half of Nadal's career titles have been on clay, hence i just feel his complete dominance on one surface doesn't make him better overall than Federer.