Strange - you guys never once talked about what a huge deal it was for Novak to equal Sampras's 7 Wimbledon record. That was an astonishing record for Novak to equal. When Sampras won 7 Wimbledons, everyone thought that record (like his Slam count record) was going to stay for a long long time. It is beyond belief that not 1 but 2 players have equaled it within 22 years of Sampras establishing that record. You guys really should have spent some time on Novak winning 7 Wimbledons and firmly establishing himself as one of the greatest Wimbledon players in history.
Among Samprass, Federer, and Djokovic Who won 7+ each at Wimbledon I notice Djokovic is different, because he’s not a serve & volley player. His serves are good, but not as good as the other two. So he basically has to use mostly his baseline game to win, which needs more effort. The other two win their serving games easily, so the worst cases for them is to take their opponents to the tiebreakers, where big servers also have an advantage.
@@miketomlin6040 You sounded like you’re anti Djokovic because you called him NoVaxx. Uday and me, neither of us tried to claim Djokovic is no. 1 at Wimbledon. By the way, the % is one thing but it’s not the criteria to judge whi is better. The number of times won is what people see and talk about more. With that, people still think Federer should be king there. Unfortunately he lost to Djokovic in 3 finals. The king really lost some credits there.
Well Nole also didn't have any practice games prior to Wimbledon. Let's be honest. And he didn't play 5 months since end of last season. So I just feel like you are underplaying Nole's strides to win this tournament. When you think about the emotional battle that he has had to deal with? Hats off to him.
I absolutely agree. Nick was serving bombs continually throughout the entire match. To the naked eye it didn't seem that way because Djokovic was returning everything after the 2nd set. This was his most impressive. Nick is the toughest read on the tour for serves. Just astounding masterclass of returning by Novak. Nick even yelled after 2h21 mins, he finally doesn't return Nick's second serve. Just insanity. I'm sorry Agassi is not even in the same breath as Novak on the return. Novak is the best returner of all time.
I've watched a number of post-major reviews with Gill & Steve Flink. Always enjoyed them, but this one was awkward. Strange that Steve made no reference to this being Wimb. title #7 for Novak tying Pete Sampras considering he literally wrote the book on Pete. Steve is normally big on history and putting results in that context. They awkwardly transitioned to talking about Nadal for a lengthy time though he wasn't the story here. Sounds like they don't know what to do with Novak's victory as all they can think about is the jab. Mentioned repeatedly they want him to get the shot so he can play. I thought the jab was a matter of public health. Such matters have apparently become a little mixed up like spaghetti. Nonetheless, it was a great tournament with a historical result from an all-time great.
PLEASE, GILL, ask Steve when he will update his book “the greatest tennis matches of all time”. I would love to buy the book, but it’s been 10 years from the last revision.
I was disappointed with Steve Flink's attitude of just arbitrarily throwing on a requirement for the jab. We got along fine without one in Paris and Wimbledon and it seems unnecessary for New York.
I love that there are tennis analysts who are objective enough to acknowledge that the data-driven evidence now only points to Nadal vs Djokovic for GOAT status. Roger was great and people will always be entitled to love their own favorites but numbers are numbers. And Roger is now officially 3rd after Rafa and Novak.
The key problem in Novak-Rafa's H2H; and which applies to a certain extent to Roger as well, is that Rafa is not making more finals in grand slams - other than clay - which dispenses a rather skewed picture of their H2H.
Yep. Nadal fans overblow the slam head to head lead and use that against Djokovic and Federer. In reality, Novak and Roger have faced the Spaniard mostly at Roland Garros as opposed to their favorite slams. Federer would dominate Rafa at Wimbledon just as Djokovic would dominate Rafa at the Australian Open. Context matters.
@@michael8597 This was to the point that Rafa is not making more finals other than the clay... It can be said the same about rog and djoker than they played so many GS on clay but won only 1 and 2 out of 19 and 16 respectively.. everyone has their fav surface and clay by far is the toughest to win ... ask Pete Sampras ... why he couldn't win French open.. and he is considered one of the greatest....
Great discussion! Steve is so articulate, and knowledgeable, always great to listen to him. About these stats that Courier keeps talking about, Steve is so right. We all know Nadal is one of the greatest returners of all time, no one denies that, but to say he's THE greatest based on one stat, which is quite misleading not only because there is a difference between return in itself, and the return game (as Gill mentioned), but also because of % of the matches played on each surface they both respectively have played. Nadal has played like circa 41% of his matches on clay, and Novak only 27%, we all know how much more likely is to break serve on clay than vs. other surfaces. There is also grass (the toughest surface to break serve on) on which Novak's played circa 10,6% of his matches, and Nadal circa 7,6%. So yeah, if we take only that one stat that Jim loves, then (per ATP stats) Guillermo Coria is the best returner of all time, and Nadal is a better server than Medvedev, Cilić, FAA, Shapovalov or Zverev...
@@idc9053 yes, when you consider everything that makes a serve good, nadal has a much better serve than all of those players by a huge margin. serving to save break points, serving to close out sets, serving to win 22 GS titles, placement, spin, varitation of patterns, disguise, all of these things together make a serve great not just flashy aces.
@@salty2009I guess it's more difficult to separate the serve as a stroke, and its goal & then what happens afterwards. I agree that there are a lot of things that make Nadal's service games great (like his abilities with first FH after the serve), but I wouldn't agree that necessary he has a better serve than them. But we can disagree. Would you say that Karlovic & Isner (as per ATP stats) are the best servers of all time, or do you have a different opinion?
Djokovic has passed Federer, but Flink saying that because Federer reached finals means he was still playing at his peak doesn't hold up to me. Novak won 3/4 slams last year but no way is anyone taking that version over 2015 Djokovic head to head. The margins are small but significant, 2014 Federer onwards was clearly past his prime.
Federer has been past peak since about 2008, still a great player, but his peak was 04-07. Djokovic's peak was 15/16 (honourable mention to 11, and 18/19).
@@joshforde698 Look at the stats of his finals before 2008 and let's say his final against Djokovic in 2014 and you will see that he did not decline. Also his elo rating has not declined. Dude was just outplayed by two better players, even teen Nadal was outplaying him on hard courts, don't have to mention clay. Pete Sampras said that Federer was at his best in 2014, Federer agreed. Andy Roddick said that in 2012 he felt that tennis has changed and that these guys are on a totally different level now, not the level he was used to. I can agree only that Novak in 2015 was better than this Novak because that 2010-2016 era was the strongest ever, out of this world Wawrinka, Andy Murray, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. And some great role players like Del Potro, Cilic etc..
@@ivanstanisavljevic8245 Federer definitely dropped off somewhat after 2007, not saying he declined, he dropped off the untouchable level he was on, Nadal caught up on hard and grass, Djokovic became a different animal in 2011, he has had to play them a lot when he has been pushing his mid to late 30s whilst they were still in their early 20s. Federer had a 5-2 lead over Nadal on non-clay courts by the end of 2007. Federer was still playing at a high level in 14/15 but it wasn't the Federer of 04-07, I do appreciate that Nadal and Djokovic raised the bar in their own way. Look at 2006 Federer, you can say what you like about the players at that time but Federer lost once to Nadal on hard, once to Murray and three times to Nadal on clay. Nadal's 2010 season saw many losses to players who were not the other two or Murray, though you can definitely compare 2015 Djokovic in terms of level reached.
@@joshforde698 bro Federer had 5-2 record against Nadal on non clay court? That's not something to use as a proof considering that he won his last seven matches on non clay courts against Nadal in his 30s. Even Pete Sampras confirmed that he was as good as ever in 2014, and Fed said that himself. He did not decline, the reality is he was dominating while Novak and Rafa were still kids. I remember Fed fans saying let's see how Novak is going to play when he is 30 or 32. Well, there you go, he is winning in his mid 30's now. There is an actual statistical analysis on youtube, whether Federer declined or not, and the conclusion is not at all. So called prime Federer lost to 17 year old kid Nadal on hard court... Can you imagine that Novak or Rafa lose to 17-18 year old guy even now? No way. Novak had risen the level of tennis in 2011, Roddick said that in 2012 he really felt that these guys are playing on a different level and that's not the tennis he was used to play...and it's not like peak is a constant, you don't have the same level thorough t the year anyway, or even a single tournament
fyi its very possible to be a huge fan of all 3, many of us are. its crazy to pick one and dismiss the unbelievable achievements they have made together
Should highlight that Djokovic and Nadal have dominated the Majors since 2018, winning 15 of the 18 Majors played, from ages 31/32 to 35/36. If Novak and Rafa can continue to win 3 of 4 Majors each year for another two years, Novak or Rafa will reach 25 Majors, passing Margaret Court. Novak has circled the Olympics played at Roland Garros in 2024. Novak also wants to extend his all-time record at AO and set the all-time record at Wimbledon. Rafa wants to extend his all-time record at the French Open and to set the all-time record at the US Open. He’d also like to win the 2024 Gold medal. Both players would like to earn a 3rd Career Grand Slam, which requires a FO for Novak, and both AO and Wimbledon for Nadal. Novak would win a fourth CGS with 2 French Opens and 1 US Open. In the history of Men’s tennis only Roy Emerson and Rod Laver also have 2 CGS. Fred Perry, Don Budge, Andre Agassi, and Roger Federer are the only other Men with one CGS.
I appreciate the sound analysis that is always heard on Mr. Gross' shows. I wonder what would happen if an umpire simply walks off the court during a match because they simply refuse to take abuse from ANY Player?
are hardcourt and grass more similar to each other than clay? If so, you're statement is pretty irrelivent considering their overall grand slam record against each other.
@@suchalad "The Greatest of All Time" has almost a decade without a Slam win over Novak on grass or hardcourt. 19 straight sets lost to Djokovic on hardcourt. Ridiculous.
Superb analysis, as always. Dare I say it, I probably look forward to your post-Slam discussion with Steve Flink even more than the 3 podcast. Hopefully, by the time the US Open comes around, Steve will be able to top up the electricity meter and get the lighting back on!
As I said before, he is now ultra concerned about his image and avoiding to be seen losing, particularly to Novak - he could lose millions as he is trying to make the hype around him last as long as possible - $$$$
@@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353 exactly he is a fraud and just cares about attention. He chickened out and didn't want to play Novak. Nadal is exposed for who he is, he isn't that nice and Novak is the true goat
Are you a doctor? Because it seems like we’re supposed to infer that key skiing is just as harmful as tennis for an abdominal tear, and, if it’s a range of movement issue, then I don’t see how holding your arms in front of you is obviously as harmful for someone with an abdominal tear.
@@eduardom.8766 Djokovic fans going wild in the comments. Can't even criticise Nick without them thinking it's to discredit Novak. Think every Rafa injury is a lie.
@@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353 If you think this is an image issue you’re mistaken. Rafa’s range of motion was mostly only impacted by having to raise his arm to serve. He otherwise looked good. So I think what really happened is that he could have maybe played but then have had to risk the tear getting worse and chose to not risk an injury to play an extra match that he didn’t think he’d win against Nick. Which would make jet skiing not a problem because it’s a completely different range of motion and - since he was considering playing - it must have been a case of him obviously being too injured to play and being a case of playing being strongly discouraged by his doctors to not play.
Might be less motivation for players who have won it multiple times. Not for others as the prize money is huge and the prestige of Wimbledon was the same.
Ok, so there's this thing going around that Rafa's return game has stronger stats than Nole. But if here's the thing. I think last time I looked they've both played somewhere around 1,200 matches. Rafa has I believe around 200 more matches played on clay and Novak more than 100 matches more played on grass. Taking that into account, for 1, it's much easier to return on clay and it's much harder to return on grass. This sets up a major differential. Then on top of that, the players who do best on clay typically don't have as strong a serve as those who do strong on grass. Therefore you're going to run into much more high class servers on grass than you will on clay at the highest level. So I think this is the most interesting part of that stat that is not being represented properly.
On top of that is the much overlooked aspect of the competetition between them that Rafa is a left hander. If you look at the stats, this gives you a major advantage over right handers because you have so many more right handers to practice and play against. It's an advantage that Rafa has that rarely gets talked about, but it is in fact an advantage that has nothing to do with talent or effort.
Great insight John. I agree with both of your points. Another point of discussion to consider regarding being lefthanded is, do you think Nadal would have had the same kind of domination against Federer from 2005-2013 if the Spaniard was a right-hander?
@@jacobschmidt2709 Yes, I definitely think that played into it. Head to head Nadal won 22 to Federer's 10 before 2014, and only 2 to 7 after. The more experience Federer gains against left handers should close the gap and lessen their advantage. Another thing to consider about those numbers is they played a lot more clay matches on average before 2014. Since then they've only played once on clay.
Please educate yourself with goat list by ultimate tennis statistics before commenting on "data driven" argument for the goat - not sure why you call major count in isolation as "data driven"
Little insight for u Gill, players council made a proposition to run Wimbledon without points, ATP refused initially then again players council made the same proposition again and ATP eventually agreed. Ask yourself why players council would do such a thing and not consult any of the players in the process?!?
Regarding the talks about Nadal getting hurt holding back his slam total, it just doesn't fly that far with Nadal losing a key match like his 2018 Wimbledon semifinal. Their rivalry is so tight to call.
I hate the goat debate so much bc it takes away from the accomplishment of one or both who end up with less instead of wow 20 major plus for all three. People engrained in the goat debate are not changing their mind period so what’s it matter. Federer will go down as the most popular and loved with rafa right there but not quite at the same level bc people are just in love with the aesthetic beauty of feds game, including myself. I think Roger is greatest subjectively, I think with all the records with weeks at number one, year end number 1, atp finals titles, master 1000s and let’s be real with his health and flexibility Novak will be around a lot longer and end up with the most slams I mean last year it was basically undisputed with his record in the slams he was the best to ever do it. Rafa is the greatest clay court player along with beloved and his level of heart it’s like why just be argue. Enjoy all three in my subjective view I think Novak is the best tennis player to ever live and for all his slams to come while competing against these two in the greatest era of tennis with rafa winning every single French he’s still one of two people to ever beat him at the French and he did it twice and beat fed three times on his court plus h2h against both its o objectively with numbers a hard argument to fight against.fed and rafa will be more loved but we’re blessed people, forgot the pointless goat debate bc what benefit does it have for your life and it will take away from your joy watching tennis. I mean people are happier when one of the other two lose than when their guy wins. That’s not joyful it’s toxic. Just share some joy in this dark world we live in and don’t spread more negativity when sports is supposed to bring us together
What makes the US government's stance on this completely ridiculous is that The US already allows unvaccinated citizens of a foreign country where the availability of COVID-19 vaccination is limited. (From CDC website) The concern about an unvaccinated person bringing COVID-19 into the country is not an issue anymore because it's already everywhere, and everyone who wants to be vaccinated is vaccinated already, therefore increasing their immunity. This should be a non-issue.
Also the vaccine doesn't prevent contagioun or transmission of COVID, just the severity of the symptoms. So it purely affects the person who gets the jab
(1) Novak is a great and deserving champion. (2) There are two Wimbledon 2022 losers: (a) tennis fans who were denied a best-on-best Novak-Rafa final; and (b) Roger Federer. I don't hear many people calling Roger the GOAT anymore
For Fed worshippers it's going to get tougher and tougher to defend him as the GOAT as Novak and Rafa get further and further ahead of him in majors. Head to head, Fed has fared poorly in Grand Slam finals and semi finals against these two, especially against Novak, it's not even close. When it's all said and done, I believe Novak will be the clear GOAT.
16:00 yes the Big 3 are changing, adapting and making up for their declining physicality *somewhat*, yet Novak and Rafa do win the physical battles, having the endurance and will to win in 5 setters. It's not that they are diminished physically and are getting by on their wits only. In many other sports aging stars move to less physically demanding roles or reduce their playtime. In tennis you have to play every point and there is no reason why a young player who is highly trained in the academies etc. shouldn't be physically superior to the Big 3 (this applies to Federer when he still played in 2019), except ... ... you draw your own conclusion as to why that is, no? Some of the adaptations, like Nadal winning at the net when necessary, is just another part of their greatness, to actually have and cultivate a wide variety of skills on the tennis court. The fact that many young pros don't have an excellent net play is notable, how can you not cultivate this skill during the *years* of development. Aren't you hyped by the idea of having another weapon in your arsenal? etc...
Rafa didn't have a "tear". Listen to what he said when he withdrew - "I don't think I can win TWO matches". He didn't want to lose to Novak in the final. He's so concerned about H2H, he's really a very small man
Exactly. He's a coward. The thought of losing to Djokovic was too much for him. Now ofc since Djokovic won't be at the USO I bet you won't hear about said injury.
Am I nuts, or is this the simplest way in the world for the ATP to give Wimbledon and the UK the finger while not screwing the players: Just let the Russians keep their points from 2021? Maybe even double their points, that would be better than this dumb idea.
Grill Gross thanks for posting. Just want to let you know Nadal was never injured. He is always perfectly healthy for the clay season. He won 14 FO does that sounds like an injured man to you? Something doesn't match up. Definitely he is the Lance Armstrong of tennis. A 36 years man can run faster than a 20 years boy. The king of clay should change to the king of bogus. Be well and Peace upon you.💥💥💥💥💥💥.
With everything Kyrgios has done I was hoping he would have ordered a pizza to be delivered to him during the match. I mean he does what he feels like anyway. That would be cool.
novak has so many bad luck in his career, he was 9 times injury or not playing by his best grandslams like BY the Australian open 2009, 2010, 2018,2022.....Wimbledon 2017, 2020...us open 2017,2019,2020... Nadal was 7 times injury by his best grandslams. French open 2016, 21....us open 2012,2014, 2018, 2020,2021... I mean that nadal was inury in wimbl, and australian open, is like when someone write federer had badluck that he was so many times not by the french open.... Actually nadal was lucky that he was injury many times in AO and wimbledon, otherwise novak would have now a much better h2h against nadal. There is a reason why nadal cant beat novak by the AO and wimbl..wimbl.last time for 15 years...
Lol djoker at us open😂😂. He lost 6 finals. Fed and nadal >djoker at us open. Nadal would have won 2014 AO,2009 wimbledon if not for injury . Rafa would have won 2003,2004 without injury. Nadal was also injured in 2009 RG also. Tsong himself said that
Regarding Sampras's appraisal of Djokovic's otherworldly great return of serve, how might he have returned in days of yore against, say, Pete Sampras, with smaller balls, raquet heads, and faster courts?
HOW many sets there are lost when they won many grandslam in row. -djokovic lost 16 sets BY HIS GSLAM WIN IN ROW in wimbl FROM 2018-22 -sampras lost 12 sets when he won 4 wimbledon in row from 1997-2000 -federer lost 8 sets from wimbl.2003-2007 -sampras lost 11 sets from wimbl.1993-1995 nadal 7.- from FRENCH OPEN 2005-2008 nadal lost 10 sets from RG 2010-14 nadal lost 3 sets from RG 2017-2020
But they do have exemptions. If the athlete is not hired by NYC can play unvaccinated that is why that American tennis player can play! It is a loophole in the law. Basketballs from NYC players were talking about. The one who live in NYC couldn't play in NY but others could.
Nick never had the mentality to beat Novak (in a wimbledon final). I was extremely disappointed with his mental preparation and tomfoolery on social media in the days before sunday. An unbelievablely incompitent preparating when you have 2 (possibly 3) bad nights of sleep before the final. As soon as he made that first underarm serve and tweener to open set 1, it was obvious he wasn't going to win. However, he was still able to play incredibly well for much of the match. This was his fairytale and he simply didn't prepare well enough to claim it.
All the evidence suggests that Djokovic supported the removal of the points as a penalty against Wimbledon to prevent tournaments from discrimination based on nationality in the future.
Think this is too much in Novak's favor. Kyrgios should have broken Novak's serve at 3-5 in the second set and that would have taken it to a tie break, which Kyrgios could have won. In the third set he was 40-0 at 4-all and he could have very well taken that set as well. Novak didn't really win the fourth set breaker. Nick had 5 unforced errors in the first 7-8 tb points and that ended it. To me, Kyrgios gave it away.
There is a logical flaw in the statement that since RF was reaching finals in 2014, 15, 19 then he might’ve been very close to his prime version. Just don’t see why Steve says this. Yes, he was good enough to advance in the draws and was better than 2019 version of Nadal (who himself was not in the best of conditions). But how does it make him close to 2006 version? Time is unforgiving, Federer couldn’t be that quick and athletic as in his 20s. Best version of Federer (just like best version of Sampras) overwhelms an opponent with the speed of all out attack. It takes the racket out of opponent’s hand. But we can’t select and put his best version against the best version of an opponent, so this is an argument without resolution. We have to stay with numbers. And there are still a lot of significant numbers, where Djokovic and Nadal are behind. Like matches won in Grand Slams and overall, tournaments won. They still have time to catch up, but they didn’t do it yet. I can’t agree with a notion that the discussion based on numbers is closed.
In 2014 and 2015 he reached the final without been broken, something he couldn’t do between 03-07. So yes, he was as good as 03-07. This “Federer was old BS” is all a complete nonsense. He was even the 2nd in the rankings during that time, not a random 20 or 30 on the rankings…
Nadal’s numbers is behind Federer’s but Djokovic’s numbers are more impressive than Federer’s . Number of matches won is not a significant criteria, also considering Federer has played more years and more tournaments. Number of tournaments won? What levels? Federer won more of 500/250 ones but the most important ones, called the majors, he’s way behind Djokovic. Actually Nadal is close to Djokovic on the masters, not Federer. The atp finals Federer has one more than Djokovic but the GSs Djokovic is now one more than Federer. The numbers that Federer had been proud of were the weeks and year end at no 1 but Djokovic got past him. Also need to mention are things like Djokovic won all 9 masters multiple times, he won 4 GSs straight, which the other two can’t, which I think is very impressive.
Tournaments overall… 😂 who cares about a bunch of Mickey Mouse tournaments. A bunch of small tournaments where the best don’t compete. The big deal is the “big titles”, where all the big guys are at. Big titles: Novak 64; Rafa 59; Federer only 54 (way behind). Overall victory’s at slams?! Who cares about this stat?! It only shows that Federer is old and that he has been around for longer.
No one. Absolutely no body who specializes in tennis gives credit to Federer any more when talking about the GOAT. It’s all about NOVAK and Rafa. Time comes and things change. Get a grip.
@@igorlucena11 Yeah I hate people who made the excuse Federer was not at peak in his 30’s. True that he, or anyone can be a tiny bit slower in their 30’s vs 20’s, but tennis isn’t all about half a step slower, like sprinting in tracks. Actually in his 30s Federer may haved been more mature in his game, technique and tatics, to make up for the declined physical conditions. So it’s hard to tell if he was better or worse in the early years or the later years. To me he still looked good in 14, 15, or even 19 wimbledon. He lost to Djokovic because of the mentality and also his game didn’t suit well vs Djokovic’s. His strength is serve and volley, which he used to beat everyone else on fast courts. Except Djokovic, arguably the best server returner, and also good at passing shots. Federer can hit a ball in the corner and approach the net where he will win the point 90+% of the times but Djokovic can track the ball down and with the splitting whip a passing shot winner.
To think Novak won 4 wimbledons alone in his 30’s! I less than Borg! Still potentially 1 or 2 more to come. Federer only won 4 slams in total since he turned 30.
3 of those while Novak was injured .. 27 year old or younger Fed was loosing to Rafa regularly. He is lucky that he is not 5-6 younger, otherwise he won't get close to 20 to be honest. He would still win a lot but you have to admit that he had easier time in his early winning years
Of course. Djokovic was just standing there and Nick gifted him the title, because he loved him very much 🤣. Check the stats 73% first serve win over 50% second serve won, served more first serves than Djokovic. Both hit 30 more winners than the unforced errors. The guy struck 30 fricken aces against the best returner in tennis. In the end lost in 4 sets. Yup, pretty poor performance from Nick. 🤣
@@djoleluk I said Nick played well. He didn't gift anything. Novak played at a super high level and deserved the victory. My point is that Nick, while very good, has some big holes in his game. He's not Roger or Rafa. Not even Murray or DelPo in my opinion. FYI, I'm a huge Novak fan.
@@mikefisher474 Sorry for being harsh, im kind of in a bad mood and i didnt read your comment well. And all those Fedal fangirls trying to discredit Novak kind of getting on my nerves so i get edgy 😂. Good assesment in your reply bro, i agree. Nick is a very good player, but he has holes in his game. Very true.
Is Flink wrong about how all players should be vaccinated as a USTA directive? Sure the only reason Djokovic can't play is because he can't get into the country, rather than the USTA not wanting him? Either Flink or myself is wrong.
Novak is the ONLY player who has 7 GS on 2 surfaces, what does that mean, well beside 2 golden masters which NOBODY has it means HE is OVERALL master on All surfaces, Nadal is SPECIALIST only on clay and roger is specialist only on grass
Not sure I agree with Steve, that volley at 40-0 was relatively easy to either put away or make it hard for NoVaxx to pass him, it was a bit of a loose showboat type volley, which arguably cost him the match, or at least game, or set. Quite often when he's 40-0 he thinks his serve is so good he can afford to lose a point or two at 40-0. Big mistake against someone as good as NoVaxx!
Re: Roger the Lesser Yes, Roger was playing great tennis in 2014+. So great, that a slower of foot-Federer pushed Novak to a couple of points in 14&19. You think a RF with a 3 years better quickness doesn't turn a few of those defensive slices into BH drives? Or a few less FH errors by being in a tad better position? Does that not POSSIBLY impact those 2 outcomes ? But even the slower RF dominated Novak @Atp finals 19, Cinci 15, Shanghai 14. So let's not pretend that Roger is anything less as interchangable @GOAT than the other 2. And what do you say of a player who beats Novak Djokovic 23 times? Not a grinder like Nadal who beats you down, or a high percentage player who waits for you to miss first... Instead, a player who has all the shots and plays low percentage high risk jugular tennis, and still beats a high% player like Novak 46% of the time. Or makes up major ground on Rafa with an older body taking a minimal beat down from nadal. It was all fine to call Roger "arguably" the greatest when he was miles ahead. But now that he gets passed by 1, he's suddenly a class below? Please! For as great as Nadal and Novak truly are, we can engineer those 2 types easier and much sooner, than there could ever be another Roger Federer. He's done what he's done with not much grunt, and made it look easy to a point of not breaking a proverbial sweat- not something a stat sheet will capture ,but not at all forgotten by the legions of fans , or the real triers of fact, who understand that the only 1 of the 3 that can qualify as Goat w/o owning every number, is Roger. 🐐🇨🇭
The GOAT race is a bit boring but I think there's more to a sport than just who wins the most. The best comparison for Federer is Tiger Woods, he will never beat Nicklaus's record for most majors but golf fans will tell you that Woods reached a higher level than any other golfer. You can make that argument for Federer. The head to head with Nadal is somewhat skewed by the sheer number of meetings on clay when Nadal was absolutely untouchable on clay, 05-10 when he went 177-6. Federer was 2-10 against Nadal on clay at that point, Nadal lost a match every 42 matches against the rest of the field not named Federer, dominance we'll never see again.
While Nadal has certainly been impacted at many majors due to injury and other unfortunately circumstances, Novak is not far behind. I estimate that Novak was impacted in a dozen majors. But injuries and other problems are part of the sport. Referencing them as excuses or testaments is petty and weak.
Nadal is a fake. Its not the first time he is running away from tournament, when he is facing a loss, specially against Novak or someone favorit. Surfices he is not as good as on clay as well. He cares much more about numbers and achievements then Novak too. Do not get supriced that Nadal went from Wimbledon as injured and as soon as he gets home he was at vacation without any sign of injury, just over night he is totally cured. Whole western world and media, specially goverments will do everythign to stop Djokovic, but is pointless. GS agenda is not all in tennis, Djokovics other achievments are much higher like weeks on No1 spot etc, I can count many. Everybody is aware even realistic Nadals fans, that if Djokovic played AO, Nadal will never win against him there. Lets not forget and USO stolen from Djokovic, by default him for NOTHING! No damn chance. So kissing ass to globalism, playing tennis with bill gates and blindly following NWO agenda kinda work out for him after all. Problem is, World in general, not western corrupted media already sees Djokovic as GOAT. Djokovic is there, and he wont stop. Fighting against players, crowd and NWO agendas will just make him greater....
Steve Flink: Yes! We have all seen your bias. Well, You are wrong.But why torture us with your personal and not very true conclusions. Why not remind us about insisting on the roof at Wimbledon being closed when later after being asked HE LIED. Your Novak. So snide he cannot admit wht the roof stayed closed on a sunny London morning- Please coment. I find you a world unto your bias, Steve Flink.
Gill: Sorry, but the more over time I listen to your SF conversations, the less I enjoy your show or respect the objectivity of why I would ever tune in.
djokovic is so lucky since wimbledon 2011 that federer,nadal, berretini, medvedev and all the russian players were always injury or banned in wimbledon or that he never beat a top 10 player when he won the title..
Steve Flink: when you canvassed a past match Djok vs Nadal in RG, you said highly objective conclusions. I repeat, where do you get off putting nadal off underneath anyone. Maybe your language ought to be careful. I regret you should have power to convince people. You dont have the right. Why dont you focus on Djok's career nastiness when things arent goping his way?? I dont like you. But its not ad hominem. You sound, or try, to be impartial. Yet its obvious what you are looking forward to using your position to cement history. But you cannot.
Steve Flink: And the more I hear from you, the more I wonder why for Gill Gross, since you utilize his platform to opine. That is fine. but you subvert the purpose: we are all here to exchange, and not to exhalt Novak, as you do. I'm amused how your tenis IQ is forever devoted to Novak. And, I'm sad you dump on a great player, but sadder you abuse the Gill Gross platform to further yoour bias.
so sad Nick, fell into the trap of self-sabotage......Nobody wants to see Novak win anymore Slams......next gen are weak Roger exposed this .....Tsisipas, Musetti and Sinner all lose while being 2 sets up against Novak..
Strange - you guys never once talked about what a huge deal it was for Novak to equal Sampras's 7 Wimbledon record.
That was an astonishing record for Novak to equal. When Sampras won 7 Wimbledons, everyone thought that record (like his Slam count record) was going to stay for a long long time.
It is beyond belief that not 1 but 2 players have equaled it within 22 years of Sampras establishing that record.
You guys really should have spent some time on Novak winning 7 Wimbledons and firmly establishing himself as one of the greatest Wimbledon players in history.
Among Samprass, Federer, and Djokovic Who won 7+ each at Wimbledon I notice Djokovic is different, because he’s not a serve & volley player. His serves are good, but not as good as the other two. So he basically has to use mostly his baseline game to win, which needs more effort. The other two win their serving games easily, so the worst cases for them is to take their opponents to the tiebreakers, where big servers also have an advantage.
Borg 93%, Sampras 90%, NoVaxx 90%, Federer 88% at Wimbledon. I doubt NoVaxx will be No 1 there, would need to win the next 6 to catch Borg.
@@miketomlin6040 You sounded like you’re anti Djokovic because you called him NoVaxx. Uday and me, neither of us tried to claim Djokovic is no. 1 at Wimbledon. By the way, the % is one thing but it’s not the criteria to judge whi is better. The number of times won is what people see and talk about more. With that, people still think Federer should be king there. Unfortunately he lost to Djokovic in 3 finals. The king really lost some credits there.
Exactly
@@miketomlin6040 you have no credibility at all which is shown by your referring to Novak as Novax- spiteful, evil person that you are
Well Nole also didn't have any practice games prior to Wimbledon. Let's be honest. And he didn't play 5 months since end of last season. So I just feel like you are underplaying Nole's strides to win this tournament. When you think about the emotional battle that he has had to deal with? Hats off to him.
But still he wasn't physically injured... although* mentally all what we have been through must've been very tough
@@exceptico6156?
Did u forget that Nole played the european clay court season? Belgrade, Monte carlo, madrid, rome(won), french open.
and you forgot he lost his main Trainer of many years who led him to first 20 GS's
@@radmilalacosta5227 ?
And just to say. You guys are amazing analysts. Both Gill and great Steve. Just masters. You really know your stuff.
I struggle to recall a return of serve performance better than Djokovic’s in this final, it was almost alien
I absolutely agree. Nick was serving bombs continually throughout the entire match. To the naked eye it didn't seem that way because Djokovic was returning everything after the 2nd set. This was his most impressive. Nick is the toughest read on the tour for serves. Just astounding masterclass of returning by Novak. Nick even yelled after 2h21 mins, he finally doesn't return Nick's second serve. Just insanity. I'm sorry Agassi is not even in the same breath as Novak on the return. Novak is the best returner of all time.
@@sonicmoj1 correct!
I think you mean superhuman.
Murray vs raonic 2016
Those deep returns are a work of art
I've watched a number of post-major reviews with Gill & Steve Flink. Always enjoyed them, but this one was awkward. Strange that Steve made no reference to this being Wimb. title #7 for Novak tying Pete Sampras considering he literally wrote the book on Pete. Steve is normally big on history and putting results in that context. They awkwardly transitioned to talking about Nadal for a lengthy time though he wasn't the story here. Sounds like they don't know what to do with Novak's victory as all they can think about is the jab. Mentioned repeatedly they want him to get the shot so he can play. I thought the jab was a matter of public health. Such matters have apparently become a little mixed up like spaghetti. Nonetheless, it was a great tournament with a historical result from an all-time great.
Novak Djokovics 7 Wimbledon titles are easily the quietest 7 Wimbledon Titles ever won. And the first 5 he had to beat Federer or Nadal. 4 in finals.
PLEASE, GILL, ask Steve when he will update his book “the greatest tennis matches of all time”. I would love to buy the book, but it’s been 10 years from the last revision.
I was disappointed with Steve Flink's attitude of just arbitrarily throwing on a requirement for the jab. We got along fine without one in Paris and Wimbledon and it seems unnecessary for New York.
I love that there are tennis analysts who are objective enough to acknowledge that the data-driven evidence now only points to Nadal vs Djokovic for GOAT status. Roger was great and people will always be entitled to love their own favorites but numbers are numbers. And Roger is now officially 3rd after Rafa and Novak.
Great insights! The genius of Novak on Grass with his ROS is unparalleled in sport.
The key problem in Novak-Rafa's H2H; and which applies to a certain extent to Roger as well, is that Rafa is not making more finals in grand slams - other than clay - which dispenses a rather skewed picture of their H2H.
Are you sure... Rafa made 16 finals other than clay... so i am not sure if you are right on your numbers
Yep. Nadal fans overblow the slam head to head lead and use that against Djokovic and Federer. In reality, Novak and Roger have faced the Spaniard mostly at Roland Garros as opposed to their favorite slams. Federer would dominate Rafa at Wimbledon just as Djokovic would dominate Rafa at the Australian Open. Context matters.
@@sbk8550 16 finals other than clay is right, but just juxtapose it with Novak and Roger who made 27 and 25 finals outside clay.
@@jacobschmidt2709 Novak has dominated Rafa at Wimbledon as well.
@@michael8597 This was to the point that Rafa is not making more finals other than the clay... It can be said the same about rog and djoker than they played so many GS on clay but won only 1 and 2 out of 19 and 16 respectively.. everyone has their fav surface and clay by far is the toughest to win ... ask Pete Sampras ... why he couldn't win French open.. and he is considered one of the greatest....
Great discussion! Steve is so articulate, and knowledgeable, always great to listen to him.
About these stats that Courier keeps talking about, Steve is so right. We all know Nadal is one of the greatest returners of all time, no one denies that, but to say he's THE greatest based on one stat, which is quite misleading not only because there is a difference between return in itself, and the return game (as Gill mentioned), but also because of % of the matches played on each surface they both respectively have played. Nadal has played like circa 41% of his matches on clay, and Novak only 27%, we all know how much more likely is to break serve on clay than vs. other surfaces. There is also grass (the toughest surface to break serve on) on which Novak's played circa 10,6% of his matches, and Nadal circa 7,6%. So yeah, if we take only that one stat that Jim loves, then (per ATP stats) Guillermo Coria is the best returner of all time, and Nadal is a better server than Medvedev, Cilić, FAA, Shapovalov or Zverev...
nadal is definitely overall a much better server than all of those people you listed. its about much more than speed and aces
@@salty2009 Hm, I wouldn't say he has a better serve than Medvedev, would you say so? Serve in itself, not how he back it up
@@idc9053 yes, when you consider everything that makes a serve good, nadal has a much better serve than all of those players by a huge margin. serving to save break points, serving to close out sets, serving to win 22 GS titles, placement, spin, varitation of patterns, disguise, all of these things together make a serve great not just flashy aces.
@@salty2009I guess it's more difficult to separate the serve as a stroke, and its goal & then what happens afterwards. I agree that there are a lot of things that make Nadal's service games great (like his abilities with first FH after the serve), but I wouldn't agree that necessary he has a better serve than them. But we can disagree. Would you say that Karlovic & Isner (as per ATP stats) are the best servers of all time, or do you have a different opinion?
@@idc9053 yes, i do think taken as a whole nadal has a more effective serve than those players
THE Legendary Steve flink
Novak Djokovic is not the Goat
He is the "got" - God of tennis 🎾😍🥰❤️🎾
Djokovic has passed Federer, but Flink saying that because Federer reached finals means he was still playing at his peak doesn't hold up to me. Novak won 3/4 slams last year but no way is anyone taking that version over 2015 Djokovic head to head. The margins are small but significant, 2014 Federer onwards was clearly past his prime.
Federer has been past peak since about 2008, still a great player, but his peak was 04-07. Djokovic's peak was 15/16 (honourable mention to 11, and 18/19).
@@joshforde698 Look at the stats of his finals before 2008 and let's say his final against Djokovic in 2014 and you will see that he did not decline. Also his elo rating has not declined. Dude was just outplayed by two better players, even teen Nadal was outplaying him on hard courts, don't have to mention clay. Pete Sampras said that Federer was at his best in 2014, Federer agreed. Andy Roddick said that in 2012 he felt that tennis has changed and that these guys are on a totally different level now, not the level he was used to. I can agree only that Novak in 2015 was better than this Novak because that 2010-2016 era was the strongest ever, out of this world Wawrinka, Andy Murray, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. And some great role players like Del Potro, Cilic etc..
@@ivanstanisavljevic8245 Federer definitely dropped off somewhat after 2007, not saying he declined, he dropped off the untouchable level he was on, Nadal caught up on hard and grass, Djokovic became a different animal in 2011, he has had to play them a lot when he has been pushing his mid to late 30s whilst they were still in their early 20s. Federer had a 5-2 lead over Nadal on non-clay courts by the end of 2007. Federer was still playing at a high level in 14/15 but it wasn't the Federer of 04-07, I do appreciate that Nadal and Djokovic raised the bar in their own way.
Look at 2006 Federer, you can say what you like about the players at that time but Federer lost once to Nadal on hard, once to Murray and three times to Nadal on clay. Nadal's 2010 season saw many losses to players who were not the other two or Murray, though you can definitely compare 2015 Djokovic in terms of level reached.
@@joshforde698 If you say Federer was better in 2007 than 2014/2015 - you must be completely ignorant.
@@joshforde698 bro Federer had 5-2 record against Nadal on non clay court? That's not something to use as a proof considering that he won his last seven matches on non clay courts against Nadal in his 30s. Even Pete Sampras confirmed that he was as good as ever in 2014, and Fed said that himself. He did not decline, the reality is he was dominating while Novak and Rafa were still kids. I remember Fed fans saying let's see how Novak is going to play when he is 30 or 32. Well, there you go, he is winning in his mid 30's now. There is an actual statistical analysis on youtube, whether Federer declined or not, and the conclusion is not at all. So called prime Federer lost to 17 year old kid Nadal on hard court... Can you imagine that Novak or Rafa lose to 17-18 year old guy even now? No way. Novak had risen the level of tennis in 2011, Roddick said that in 2012 he really felt that these guys are playing on a different level and that's not the tennis he was used to play...and it's not like peak is a constant, you don't have the same level thorough t the year anyway, or even a single tournament
Steve
Was waiting for both of u together 🙌👍
Kyrgios played great. Djokovic was better. Fedal fangirls were crying. End of story. 🤣
It really is like walking into teenage twitter seeing comments like this one smh
fyi its very possible to be a huge fan of all 3, many of us are. its crazy to pick one and dismiss the unbelievable achievements they have made together
how can you possibly consider yourself a true tennis fan if you can’t appreciate all of them
@@piqueblinders7948 Im glad you liked it.😂 Say hello to your teenage mutant Fedal fangirl twitter buddies for me 🤣
Kyrgis was very good. Djokovic great. End of story.
Great analysis as always by Steve Flink'.
Should highlight that Djokovic and Nadal have dominated the Majors since 2018, winning 15 of the 18 Majors played, from ages 31/32 to 35/36. If Novak and Rafa can continue to win 3 of 4 Majors each year for another two years, Novak or Rafa will reach 25 Majors, passing Margaret Court.
Novak has circled the Olympics played at Roland Garros in 2024. Novak also wants to extend his all-time record at AO and set the all-time record at Wimbledon.
Rafa wants to extend his all-time record at the French Open and to set the all-time record at the US Open. He’d also like to win the 2024 Gold medal.
Both players would like to earn a 3rd Career Grand Slam, which requires a FO for Novak, and both AO and Wimbledon for Nadal. Novak would win a fourth CGS with 2 French Opens and 1 US Open. In the history of Men’s tennis only Roy Emerson and Rod Laver also have 2 CGS. Fred Perry, Don Budge, Andre Agassi, and Roger Federer are the only other Men with one CGS.
Stan Wawrinka is just one wimbledon short for his CGS ;-)
I appreciate the sound analysis that is always heard on Mr. Gross' shows. I wonder what would happen if an umpire simply walks off the court during a match because they simply refuse to take abuse from ANY Player?
Freezing points would have absolutely been a better way to go.
Nole destroys Rafa on hard court and grass, end of comparison
are hardcourt and grass more similar to each other than clay? If so, you're statement is pretty irrelivent considering their overall grand slam record against each other.
@@suchalad "The Greatest of All Time" has almost a decade without a Slam win over Novak on grass or hardcourt. 19 straight sets lost to Djokovic on hardcourt. Ridiculous.
@@naysayer1238 my opinion. If rafa ends with more grand slams, its still up for debate, if equal or less, you cant say its rafa
@@suchalad There is no "GOAT". This is all so irritating.
@@naysayer1238 There is no "GOAT". This is all so irritating.
Bravo to Novak. The Australians are given loiseau.
Always a pleasure to hear sir Steve Flink and his takes
Goatvak Goatkovic showed who's the real Goat
Superb analysis, as always. Dare I say it, I probably look forward to your post-Slam discussion with Steve Flink even more than the 3 podcast. Hopefully, by the time the US Open comes around, Steve will be able to top up the electricity meter and get the lighting back on!
‘Miraculous’ Nadal was seen jet skiing in Spain within days of the withdrawal for alleged ‘abdominal tear’ ???
As I said before, he is now ultra concerned about his image and avoiding to be seen losing, particularly to Novak - he could lose millions as he is trying to make the hype around him last as long as possible - $$$$
@@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353 exactly he is a fraud and just cares about attention. He chickened out and didn't want to play Novak. Nadal is exposed for who he is, he isn't that nice and Novak is the true goat
Are you a doctor? Because it seems like we’re supposed to infer that key skiing is just as harmful as tennis for an abdominal tear, and, if it’s a range of movement issue, then I don’t see how holding your arms in front of you is obviously as harmful for someone with an abdominal tear.
@@eduardom.8766 Djokovic fans going wild in the comments. Can't even criticise Nick without them thinking it's to discredit Novak. Think every Rafa injury is a lie.
@@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353 If you think this is an image issue you’re mistaken. Rafa’s range of motion was mostly only impacted by having to raise his arm to serve. He otherwise looked good. So I think what really happened is that he could have maybe played but then have had to risk the tear getting worse and chose to not risk an injury to play an extra match that he didn’t think he’d win against Nick. Which would make jet skiing not a problem because it’s a completely different range of motion and - since he was considering playing - it must have been a case of him obviously being too injured to play and being a case of playing being strongly discouraged by his doctors to not play.
I still think it was a very odd wimbledon. Without points it's way less motivation for players.
Might be less motivation for players who have won it multiple times. Not for others as the prize money is huge and the prestige of Wimbledon was the same.
on clay Rafa is the best returner of the game while on faster court novak is period.
Love your content. Had First courts tickets to the 3rd round. It was brilliant this year.
Ok, so there's this thing going around that Rafa's return game has stronger stats than Nole. But if here's the thing. I think last time I looked they've both played somewhere around 1,200 matches. Rafa has I believe around 200 more matches played on clay and Novak more than 100 matches more played on grass. Taking that into account, for 1, it's much easier to return on clay and it's much harder to return on grass. This sets up a major differential. Then on top of that, the players who do best on clay typically don't have as strong a serve as those who do strong on grass. Therefore you're going to run into much more high class servers on grass than you will on clay at the highest level. So I think this is the most interesting part of that stat that is not being represented properly.
On top of that is the much overlooked aspect of the competetition between them that Rafa is a left hander. If you look at the stats, this gives you a major advantage over right handers because you have so many more right handers to practice and play against. It's an advantage that Rafa has that rarely gets talked about, but it is in fact an advantage that has nothing to do with talent or effort.
I would love to hear y'all opinions on these two things
Perhaps you can respond in your next questions and answers video
Great insight John. I agree with both of your points. Another point of discussion to consider regarding being lefthanded is, do you think Nadal would have had the same kind of domination against Federer from 2005-2013 if the Spaniard was a right-hander?
@@jacobschmidt2709 Yes, I definitely think that played into it. Head to head Nadal won 22 to Federer's 10 before 2014, and only 2 to 7 after. The more experience Federer gains against left handers should close the gap and lessen their advantage. Another thing to consider about those numbers is they played a lot more clay matches on average before 2014. Since then they've only played once on clay.
Please educate yourself with goat list by ultimate tennis statistics before commenting on "data driven" argument for the goat - not sure why you call major count in isolation as "data driven"
Little insight for u Gill, players council made a proposition to run Wimbledon without points, ATP refused initially then again players council made the same proposition again and ATP eventually agreed. Ask yourself why players council would do such a thing and not consult any of the players in the process?!?
Yes- we would all like to know that , especially when it is said that Nadal and Federer were pushing for no points..Can that be true ?
Regarding the talks about Nadal getting hurt holding back his slam total, it just doesn't fly that far with Nadal losing a key match like his 2018 Wimbledon semifinal. Their rivalry is so tight to call.
I hate the goat debate so much bc it takes away from the accomplishment of one or both who end up with less instead of wow 20 major plus for all three. People engrained in the goat debate are not changing their mind period so what’s it matter. Federer will go down as the most popular and loved with rafa right there but not quite at the same level bc people are just in love with the aesthetic beauty of feds game, including myself. I think Roger is greatest subjectively, I think with all the records with weeks at number one, year end number 1, atp finals titles, master 1000s and let’s be real with his health and flexibility Novak will be around a lot longer and end up with the most slams I mean last year it was basically undisputed with his record in the slams he was the best to ever do it. Rafa is the greatest clay court player along with beloved and his level of heart it’s like why just be argue. Enjoy all three in my subjective view I think Novak is the best tennis player to ever live and for all his slams to come while competing against these two in the greatest era of tennis with rafa winning every single French he’s still one of two people to ever beat him at the French and he did it twice and beat fed three times on his court plus h2h against both its o objectively with numbers a hard argument to fight against.fed and rafa will be more loved but we’re blessed people, forgot the pointless goat debate bc what benefit does it have for your life and it will take away from your joy watching tennis. I mean people are happier when one of the other two lose than when their guy wins. That’s not joyful it’s toxic. Just share some joy in this dark world we live in and don’t spread more negativity when sports is supposed to bring us together
What makes the US government's stance on this completely ridiculous is that The US already allows unvaccinated citizens of a foreign country where the availability of COVID-19 vaccination is limited. (From CDC website)
The concern about an unvaccinated person bringing COVID-19 into the country is not an issue anymore because it's already everywhere, and everyone who wants to be vaccinated is vaccinated already, therefore increasing their immunity. This should be a non-issue.
Also the vaccine doesn't prevent contagioun or transmission of COVID, just the severity of the symptoms. So it purely affects the person who gets the jab
That proves that it's purely political. It's about control, not health.
Excellent lads
An enormous error for the ATP to fail to realize that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Finding extraordinary justification to what has eventually happened, not allowing anything in the way 😀
steve flink is one of the few journalists that tries to be objective and isn't a total sycophant unlike ben rothenberg
Ben is not real journalist he's a shill for leftist propaganda
MOST TOP 10 wins in grandslam (when all were 35 years old)
1-Federer 65(56)
2-Djokovic 61
3- Nadal 56 (50)
n
Spot on.
(1) Novak is a great and deserving champion. (2) There are two Wimbledon 2022 losers: (a) tennis fans who were denied a best-on-best Novak-Rafa final; and (b) Roger Federer. I don't hear many people calling Roger the GOAT anymore
Incredibly a few of those still say it... 🙄
For Fed worshippers it's going to get tougher and tougher to defend him as the GOAT as Novak and Rafa get further and further ahead of him in majors. Head to head, Fed has fared poorly in Grand Slam finals and semi finals against these two, especially against Novak, it's not even close. When it's all said and done, I believe Novak will be the clear GOAT.
A tie would be disastrous. What a ridiculous statement! This time in our lives is already bad enough for Federer fans.
Nole the G.O.A.T. w/o any doubt.
16:00 yes the Big 3 are changing, adapting and making up for their declining physicality *somewhat*, yet Novak and Rafa do win the physical battles, having the endurance and will to win in 5 setters. It's not that they are diminished physically and are getting by on their wits only.
In many other sports aging stars move to less physically demanding roles or reduce their playtime. In tennis you have to play every point and there is no reason why a young player who is highly trained in the academies etc. shouldn't be physically superior to the Big 3 (this applies to Federer when he still played in 2019), except ...
... you draw your own conclusion as to why that is, no?
Some of the adaptations, like Nadal winning at the net when necessary, is just another part of their greatness, to actually have and cultivate a wide variety of skills on the tennis court. The fact that many young pros don't have an excellent net play is notable, how can you not cultivate this skill during the *years* of development. Aren't you hyped by the idea of having another weapon in your arsenal? etc...
Rafa didn't have a "tear". Listen to what he said when he withdrew - "I don't think I can win TWO matches". He didn't want to lose to Novak in the final. He's so concerned about H2H, he's really a very small man
Exactly. He's a coward. The thought of losing to Djokovic was too much for him. Now ofc since Djokovic won't be at the USO I bet you won't hear about said injury.
Am I nuts, or is this the simplest way in the world for the ATP to give Wimbledon and the UK the finger while not screwing the players: Just let the Russians keep their points from 2021? Maybe even double their points, that would be better than this dumb idea.
Grill Gross thanks for posting. Just want to let you know Nadal was never injured. He is always perfectly healthy for the clay season. He won 14 FO does that sounds like an injured man to you? Something doesn't match up. Definitely he is the Lance Armstrong of tennis. A 36 years man can run faster than a 20 years boy. The king of clay should change to the
king of bogus. Be well and Peace upon you.💥💥💥💥💥💥.
Consistently unfair by banning all unvaccinated isn't the way I'd want to go
Right. My understanding is this is a US government issue, not a US Open issue. If you can show up at the door you can play.
Nole is better than rafa at all surfaces except clay
With everything Kyrgios has done I was hoping he would have ordered a pizza to be delivered to him during the match. I mean he does what he feels like anyway. That would be cool.
A vegan pizza. Like Novak, Nick is also plant based.
Hey Gill, call Steve Flink :)
novak has so many bad luck in his career, he was 9 times injury or not playing by his best grandslams like
BY the Australian open 2009, 2010, 2018,2022.....Wimbledon 2017, 2020...us open 2017,2019,2020...
Nadal was 7 times injury by his best grandslams. French open 2016, 21....us open 2012,2014, 2018, 2020,2021...
I mean that nadal was inury in wimbl, and australian open, is like when someone write federer had badluck that he was so many times not by the french open....
Actually nadal was lucky that he was injury many times in AO and wimbledon, otherwise novak would have now a much better h2h against nadal. There is a reason why nadal cant beat novak by the AO and wimbl..wimbl.last time for 15 years...
Yes… a multitude of injuries.
Very true
GOAT debate would have been done and dusted by now. 😔
Lol djoker at us open😂😂. He lost 6 finals. Fed and nadal >djoker at us open. Nadal would have won 2014 AO,2009 wimbledon if not for injury . Rafa would have won 2003,2004 without injury. Nadal was also injured in 2009 RG also. Tsong himself said that
Regarding Sampras's appraisal of Djokovic's otherworldly great return of serve, how might he have returned in days of yore against, say, Pete Sampras, with smaller balls, raquet heads, and faster courts?
HOW many sets there are lost when they won many grandslam in row.
-djokovic lost 16 sets BY HIS GSLAM WIN IN ROW in wimbl FROM 2018-22
-sampras lost 12 sets when he won 4 wimbledon in row from 1997-2000
-federer lost 8 sets from wimbl.2003-2007
-sampras lost 11 sets from wimbl.1993-1995
nadal 7.- from FRENCH OPEN 2005-2008
nadal lost 10 sets from RG 2010-14
nadal lost 3 sets from RG 2017-2020
But they do have exemptions. If the athlete is not hired by NYC can play unvaccinated that is why that American tennis player can play! It is a loophole in the law. Basketballs from NYC players were talking about. The one who live in NYC couldn't play in NY but others could.
Is Hippocratic
Nick never had the mentality to beat Novak (in a wimbledon final). I was extremely disappointed with his mental preparation and tomfoolery on social media in the days before sunday. An unbelievablely incompitent preparating when you have 2 (possibly 3) bad nights of sleep before the final. As soon as he made that first underarm serve and tweener to open set 1, it was obvious he wasn't going to win.
However, he was still able to play incredibly well for much of the match. This was his fairytale and he simply didn't prepare well enough to claim it.
You saw a few posts from him on social media, how do you know anything else about his preparation?
@@joshforde698 he had at least 2 very bad nights of sleep including saturday night
All the evidence suggests that Djokovic supported the removal of the points as a penalty against Wimbledon to prevent tournaments from discrimination based on nationality in the future.
And which evidence is that?
@@asud2571 “all of it” 🥴🥴
Think this is too much in Novak's favor. Kyrgios should have broken Novak's serve at 3-5 in the second set and that would have taken it to a tie break, which Kyrgios could have won. In the third set he was 40-0 at 4-all and he could have very well taken that set as well. Novak didn't really win the fourth set breaker. Nick had 5 unforced errors in the first 7-8 tb points and that ended it. To me, Kyrgios gave it away.
Big 2 Gill Big Two !!! There is no Nr 3 for years already !!!! SMH
There is a logical flaw in the statement that since RF was reaching finals in 2014, 15, 19 then he might’ve been very close to his prime version. Just don’t see why Steve says this. Yes, he was good enough to advance in the draws and was better than 2019 version of Nadal (who himself was not in the best of conditions). But how does it make him close to 2006 version? Time is unforgiving, Federer couldn’t be that quick and athletic as in his 20s. Best version of Federer (just like best version of Sampras) overwhelms an opponent with the speed of all out attack. It takes the racket out of opponent’s hand. But we can’t select and put his best version against the best version of an opponent, so this is an argument without resolution. We have to stay with numbers. And there are still a lot of significant numbers, where Djokovic and Nadal are behind. Like matches won in Grand Slams and overall, tournaments won. They still have time to catch up, but they didn’t do it yet. I can’t agree with a notion that the discussion based on numbers is closed.
In 2014 and 2015 he reached the final without been broken, something he couldn’t do between 03-07. So yes, he was as good as 03-07. This “Federer was old BS” is all a complete nonsense. He was even the 2nd in the rankings during that time, not a random 20 or 30 on the rankings…
Nadal’s numbers is behind Federer’s but Djokovic’s numbers are more impressive than Federer’s . Number of matches won is not a significant criteria, also considering Federer has played more years and more tournaments. Number of tournaments won? What levels? Federer won more of 500/250 ones but the most important ones, called the majors, he’s way behind Djokovic. Actually Nadal is close to Djokovic on the masters, not Federer. The atp finals Federer has one more than Djokovic but the GSs Djokovic is now one more than Federer. The numbers that Federer had been proud of were the weeks and year end at no 1 but Djokovic got past him. Also need to mention are things like Djokovic won all 9 masters multiple times, he won 4 GSs straight, which the other two can’t, which I think is very impressive.
Tournaments overall… 😂 who cares about a bunch of Mickey Mouse tournaments. A bunch of small tournaments where the best don’t compete. The big deal is the “big titles”, where all the big guys are at. Big titles: Novak 64; Rafa 59; Federer only 54 (way behind). Overall victory’s at slams?! Who cares about this stat?! It only shows that Federer is old and that he has been around for longer.
No one. Absolutely no body who specializes in tennis gives credit to Federer any more when talking about the GOAT. It’s all about NOVAK and Rafa. Time comes and things change. Get a grip.
@@igorlucena11 Yeah I hate people who made the excuse Federer was not at peak in his 30’s. True that he, or anyone can be a tiny bit slower in their 30’s vs 20’s, but tennis isn’t all about half a step slower, like sprinting in tracks. Actually in his 30s Federer may haved been more mature in his game, technique and tatics, to make up for the declined physical conditions. So it’s hard to tell if he was better or worse in the early years or the later years. To me he still looked good in 14, 15, or even 19 wimbledon. He lost to Djokovic because of the mentality and also his game didn’t suit well vs Djokovic’s. His strength is serve and volley, which he used to beat everyone else on fast courts. Except Djokovic, arguably the best server returner, and also good at passing shots. Federer can hit a ball in the corner and approach the net where he will win the point 90+% of the times but Djokovic can track the ball down and with the splitting whip a passing shot winner.
The umpire made mistake best end the fire hand was in a buck couldn't challenge he had a point.
Flink did not flunk; belongs at Gill's flank👍
He did flunk on the outdated vaccination policy - such politicized propaganda on all sides in the US
To think Novak won 4 wimbledons alone in his 30’s! I less than Borg! Still potentially 1 or 2 more to come. Federer only won 4 slams in total since he turned 30.
3 of those while Novak was injured
.. 27 year old or younger Fed was loosing to Rafa regularly. He is lucky that he is not 5-6 younger, otherwise he won't get close to 20 to be honest. He would still win a lot but you have to admit that he had easier time in his early winning years
First like , then enjoy .
Yes, Nick played well. His return game was quite poor and after set 1, he was pretty bad around the net. It was his serving that kept him close.
Of course. Djokovic was just standing there and Nick gifted him the title, because he loved him very much 🤣. Check the stats 73% first serve win over 50% second serve won, served more first serves than Djokovic. Both hit 30 more winners than the unforced errors. The guy struck 30 fricken aces against the best returner in tennis. In the end lost in 4 sets. Yup, pretty poor performance from Nick. 🤣
@@djoleluk I said Nick played well. He didn't gift anything. Novak played at a super high level and deserved the victory. My point is that Nick, while very good, has some big holes in his game. He's not Roger or Rafa. Not even Murray or DelPo in my opinion. FYI, I'm a huge Novak fan.
@@mikefisher474 Sorry for being harsh, im kind of in a bad mood and i didnt read your comment well. And all those Fedal fangirls trying to discredit Novak kind of getting on my nerves so i get edgy 😂. Good assesment in your reply bro, i agree. Nick is a very good player, but he has holes in his game. Very true.
Gill what's the difference between 82 and 83 percent? LOL
Is Flink wrong about how all players should be vaccinated as a USTA directive? Sure the only reason Djokovic can't play is because he can't get into the country, rather than the USTA not wanting him? Either Flink or myself is wrong.
Not true. Sandgren is unvaccinated but will be allowed to play.
Novak is the ONLY player who has 7 GS on 2 surfaces, what does that mean, well beside 2 golden masters which NOBODY has it means HE is OVERALL master on All surfaces, Nadal is SPECIALIST only on clay and roger is specialist only on grass
And soon Novak will surpass Roger on grass
Not sure I agree with Steve, that volley at 40-0 was relatively easy to either put away or make it hard for NoVaxx to pass him, it was a bit of a loose showboat type volley, which arguably cost him the match, or at least game, or set. Quite often when he's 40-0 he thinks his serve is so good he can afford to lose a point or two at 40-0. Big mistake against someone as good as NoVaxx!
Steve-ahh Flink-ahh
That’s just how some aussies are, they deliberately find reasons to get fired up.
Re: Roger the Lesser
Yes, Roger was playing great tennis in 2014+. So great, that a slower of foot-Federer pushed Novak to a couple of points in 14&19. You think a RF with a 3 years better quickness doesn't turn a few of those defensive slices into BH drives? Or a few less FH errors by being in a tad better position? Does that not POSSIBLY impact those 2 outcomes ?
But even the slower RF dominated Novak @Atp finals 19, Cinci 15, Shanghai 14. So let's not pretend that Roger is anything less as interchangable @GOAT than the other 2.
And what do you say of a player who beats Novak Djokovic 23 times? Not a grinder like Nadal who beats you down, or a high percentage player who waits for you to miss first... Instead, a player who has all the shots and plays low percentage high risk jugular tennis, and still beats a high% player like Novak 46% of the time. Or makes up major ground on Rafa with an older body taking a minimal beat down from nadal.
It was all fine to call Roger "arguably" the greatest when he was miles ahead. But now that he gets passed by 1, he's suddenly a class below? Please!
For as great as Nadal and Novak truly are, we can engineer those 2 types easier and much sooner, than there could ever be another Roger Federer. He's done what he's done with not much grunt, and made it look easy to a point of not breaking a proverbial sweat- not something a stat sheet will capture ,but not at all forgotten by the legions of fans , or the real triers of fact, who understand that the only 1 of the 3 that can qualify as Goat w/o owning every number, is Roger. 🐐🇨🇭
The GOAT race is a bit boring but I think there's more to a sport than just who wins the most. The best comparison for Federer is Tiger Woods, he will never beat Nicklaus's record for most majors but golf fans will tell you that Woods reached a higher level than any other golfer. You can make that argument for Federer. The head to head with Nadal is somewhat skewed by the sheer number of meetings on clay when Nadal was absolutely untouchable on clay, 05-10 when he went 177-6. Federer was 2-10 against Nadal on clay at that point, Nadal lost a match every 42 matches against the rest of the field not named Federer, dominance we'll never see again.
You can't have an rgument Roger's peak was the highest if you've watched first 2 sets of the 2016AO semis Novak-Roger.
Why is Steve sitting in the dark.
While Nadal has certainly been impacted at many majors due to injury and other unfortunately circumstances, Novak is not far behind. I estimate that Novak was impacted in a dozen majors. But injuries and other problems are part of the sport. Referencing them as excuses or testaments is petty and weak.
Nadal is a fake. Its not the first time he is running away from tournament, when he is facing a loss, specially against Novak or someone favorit. Surfices he is not as good as on clay as well. He cares much more about numbers and achievements then Novak too. Do not get supriced that Nadal went from Wimbledon as injured and as soon as he gets home he was at vacation without any sign of injury, just over night he is totally cured. Whole western world and media, specially goverments will do everythign to stop Djokovic, but is pointless. GS agenda is not all in tennis, Djokovics other achievments are much higher like weeks on No1 spot etc, I can count many. Everybody is aware even realistic Nadals fans, that if Djokovic played AO, Nadal will never win against him there. Lets not forget and USO stolen from Djokovic, by default him for NOTHING! No damn chance. So kissing ass to globalism, playing tennis with bill gates and blindly following NWO agenda kinda work out for him after all. Problem is, World in general, not western corrupted media already sees Djokovic as GOAT. Djokovic is there, and he wont stop. Fighting against players, crowd and NWO agendas will just make him greater....
Alex’s War is Novax War
Steve Flink: Yes! We have all seen your bias. Well, You are wrong.But why torture us with your personal and not very true conclusions. Why not remind us about insisting on the roof at Wimbledon being closed when later after being asked HE LIED. Your Novak. So snide he cannot admit wht the roof stayed closed on a sunny London morning- Please coment. I find you a world unto your bias, Steve Flink.
Gill Gross: Your show is so exposed to being abused, to being extended for purposes alien. You see or I see.
Gill: Sorry, but the more over time I listen to your SF conversations, the less I enjoy your show or respect the objectivity of why I would ever tune in.
djokovic is so lucky since wimbledon 2011 that federer,nadal, berretini, medvedev and all the russian players were always injury or banned in wimbledon or that he never beat a top 10 player when he won the title..
Your English is terrible!
Its not his fault top tens go out early. For example Hurkacz round1. Come on...
kyrgios is the most dangerous oponent a part from fed and rafa by faar . just alcaraz is same level of danger and then comes sinner .
@@lowkey.8448 Alcaraz is a joke on grass. On clay and hc agreed. If Djokovic is not allowed to step on US soil, US Open is Alcaraz's to loose.
Lose*
Novax War
Steve Flink: when you canvassed a past match Djok vs Nadal in RG, you said highly objective conclusions. I repeat, where do you get off putting nadal off underneath anyone. Maybe your language ought to be careful. I regret you should have power to convince people. You dont have the right.
Why dont you focus on Djok's career nastiness when things arent goping his way??
I dont like you. But its not ad hominem. You sound, or try, to be impartial. Yet its obvious what you are looking forward to using your position to cement history. But you cannot.
Steve Flink: And the more I hear from you, the more I wonder why for Gill Gross, since you utilize his platform to opine. That is fine. but you subvert the purpose: we are all here to exchange, and not to exhalt Novak, as you do. I'm amused how your tenis IQ is forever devoted to Novak. And, I'm sad you dump on a great player, but sadder you abuse the Gill Gross platform to further yoour bias.
As usual Flick licking Novak's chops. We all know how good he is, but his view against anyone else is exagerrated
Novak is God
Also I have to disagree. The Wimbledon ban was shameless and they deserved to lose all points.
Rafa is undisputed Goat!
Novak is clown!
Stats say otherwise
so sad Nick, fell into the trap of self-sabotage......Nobody wants to see Novak win anymore Slams......next gen are weak Roger exposed this .....Tsisipas, Musetti and Sinner all lose while being 2 sets up against Novak..