While Roger was scoring trophies against young Novak and Nadal and others who arent part of Big 3, Nadal and Novak always had to go against either each other or against Roger in his prime. They never had it easy. In h2h, both Novak and Nadal beat Roger.
Roger is good defintiely but not on level of Nadal and Novak. Nadal's one weak spot is that most of his success comes from clay surface so I understand if people make an argument that Roger is overall better than him despite less trophies however, even if we exclude their results from clay, Nadal is probably still leading in h2h because Roger was tactically avoiding Roland Garros.
As soon as Nadal and Novak leveled their game up and started playing consistently, Roger started collecting losses.
The most insane score here is that all 3 of them collected 20 or more grand slams while playing in the same era. If they all had played without other 2 present, they would have probably passed 30 grand slams by now.
Roger is good defintiely but not on level of Nadal and Novak. Nadal's one weak spot is that most of his success comes from clay surface so I understand if people make an argument that Roger is overall better than him despite less trophies however, even if we exclude their results from clay, Nadal is probably still leading in h2h because Roger was tactically avoiding Roland Garros.
As soon as Nadal and Novak leveled their game up and started playing consistently, Roger started collecting losses.
The most insane score here is that all 3 of them collected 20 or more grand slams while playing in the same era. If they all had played without other 2 present, they would have probably passed 30 grand slams by now.
No but it was clear what you were implying Al. Like I said
Scoring wins against them early on while at his peak and while they've just started is nothing to write home about. No point in bringing that up then cuz when all hit their primes they outplayed Roger constantly and Roger only looked better against young versions of them.
Scoring wins against them early on while at his peak and while they've just started is nothing to write home about. No point in bringing that up then cuz when all hit their primes they outplayed Roger constantly and Roger only looked better against young versions of them.
They were beating him in his prime while they were out of prime.
He had time to beat them before they reached prime, they had time to face Roger when they were in their prime.
The score says it all. The only thing stopping Roger from winning Roland Garros titles was Nadal and Novak and they have been doing it his whole carrier, not only when he declined.
Nadal and Novak were always playing against the big 3, Roger had time to play against others before the big 3 existed.
The level of opponents Novak and Nadal were facing their whole life is simply higher than what Roger was facing.
He had time to beat them before they reached prime, they had time to face Roger when they were in their prime.
The score says it all. The only thing stopping Roger from winning Roland Garros titles was Nadal and Novak and they have been doing it his whole carrier, not only when he declined.
Nadal and Novak were always playing against the big 3, Roger had time to play against others before the big 3 existed.
The level of opponents Novak and Nadal were facing their whole life is simply higher than what Roger was facing.
There is no levels to this. Novak took advantage of an old Federer and Nadal with one leg
The greatest of all time is Rod Laver. Two CYGS and over 200 titles.
Laver lost five years of his prime cos he wasn't allowed to play. Won the calendar year slam prior to his ban and won it 5 years after his ban. No man has ever won the CYGS once let alone twice. Put some respect on his name
Tennis existed before the big 3 you know
The greatest of all time is Rod Laver. Two CYGS and over 200 titles.
Laver lost five years of his prime cos he wasn't allowed to play. Won the calendar year slam prior to his ban and won it 5 years after his ban. No man has ever won the CYGS once let alone twice. Put some respect on his name
Post automatically merged:
Tennis existed before the big 3 you know
There is no levels to this. Novak took advantage of an old Federer and Nadal with one leg
The greatest of all time is Rod Laver. Two CYGS and over 200 titles.
Laver lost five years of his prime cos he wasn't allowed to play. Won the calendar year slam prior to his ban and won it 5 years after his ban. No man has ever won the CYGS once let alone twice. Put some respect on his name
Tennis existed before the big 3 you know
The greatest of all time is Rod Laver. Two CYGS and over 200 titles.
Laver lost five years of his prime cos he wasn't allowed to play. Won the calendar year slam prior to his ban and won it 5 years after his ban. No man has ever won the CYGS once let alone twice. Put some respect on his name
Post automatically merged:
Tennis existed before the big 3 you know
Not only did they score double the amount of GS trophies compared to anyone else but they did it while playing in the same era.
The level at which the 3 of them are playing would make people like Rod look like 3rd class player. It's like saying Pele was better than today's best football players. The game that Djokovic has perfected cannot be matched by anyone else. Nobody has ever played tennis at this level. Dude is almost 36 and is still King of Tennis while Roger won his last GS at that age, lol.
No but they have beaten them far more than they have lost. Roger's score on Roland Garros is terrible and it isnt because he declined.
All the losses of his career can be attributed to Nadal and Novak, probably like 90% of it and he wasnt losing only after he declined.
He was facing Novak on RG as well.
He was losing Wimbledons to Novak 12 years ago, during his prime...
From 2008 onwards he won only 3 Wimbledons and that was 26 years old Roger in his prime...
He had strong competition but his early scores are before big 3 existed, when Novak and Nadal were youngsters.
There was never a period for two of them without the other 2 of the big 3 being present.
