Is Nadal the weakest of the 10+ slam winners?

Out of this group is Nadal the player with the weakest resume?

Federer
Sampras
Emerson
Laver
Borg
Tilden
Nadal

An arbitrary list, IMO.

Why is Nadal considered the 'weakest'? Does winning 2005-2011 FO (except 2009) not count for being strong and dominating?

Why not include Decugis or Lacoste, in this list?

Depends how you define weak, if its based purely on slam numbers then he's got less than guys like Borg, Fed, Samp...but if you look at his overall record its probably stronger than many of them (career slam, Olympics, Davis Cup, 19 Masters, etc) plus he's the only one to win slams on 3 different surfaces in one calendar year. Detractors would say his record is skewed towards French Open and clay in general but then Borg only won 2 of the 4 slams, Laver won most of his slams on grass, etc.

Ah...another Nadal basher....It looks like it's fashionable nowadays.

I personally think that Nadal is the second weakest of the 6+ slammers, Wilander being probably the one.

I ONLY included those who won 10 or more slams:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions

Most Grand Slam singles titles (all-time)

Note: when a tie occurs, the person to reach the mark first is listed first.

Titles Players


16 Roger Federer
14 Pete Sampras
12 Roy Emerson
11 Rod Laver, Björn Borg
10 Bill Tilden, Rafael Nadal



Double digits. Capice?

Well going on the criteria of winning slams which seems to be the normal measure on this forum the fact that Nadal has won all four slams would IMO give a him stronger resume than Borg (never won AO or USO) and Sampras (FO). This is not to say that Borg, who I loved watching, and Sampras were inferior to Nadal but just shows how these arbitary such comparisons are especially when they played in different era's.

Would say that Federer's resume is currently stronger that Nadal's but three years down the line that could have changed.

I'd say he's the best

Nadal is surely one of the strongest...his left bicep is a thing to behold

Calder106 wrote:all four slams would IMO give a him stronger resume than Borg (never won AO or USO) and Sampras (FO)

Tilden is also without FO and AO.

I agree with Lydian on this one. I think comparison is not fair. Nadal has done well, considering the fact that his game did not have much variety he managed to win slams on other surfaces as well.

Well we have to put things in perspective. How many GSs would have Pete won if they had all played fast like Wimby 90s? same queston if they had all played like the FO 90s? Likewise, How many slams Nadal woudl have won if they had played like WImby 90s?

I am not particularly impressed by winning the 4 slams. It doesn;t mean much anymore. And that is proven by the fact that the same top 4 players reach the semis of the 4 slams without any particular difficulty....as long as they are fit enough!

There is no doubt that out of the current list of those with 10+ slam wins in Mens Tennis, Nadal is the strongest.

I base my judgement on the fact that many on that list are currently quite old or very old or dead whilst Roger Federer, as discussed in a separate thread, is close to retyring.

Given that Emerson never won a Slam as a professional, I think it's a safe bet that he's the 'weakest' here. I'd certainly have Nadal over Tilden, too. None of them can boast a head to head record over a player of Federer's class like Nadal can, either.

To me, there are five men with a real claim to being the greatest tennis player who's ever lived. I'd say Nadal is part of that elite quintet, along with Federer, Laver, Borg and Sampras.

Tenez - all your points equally apply to Federer as Nadal.

I'd go along with that 88Chris...

I often think that Emerton gets a bit of a raw deal on most forums, there's a sort of argument that goes "he only won AO because the best players gave it a miss". While it's true that he won AO six times, he won the other slams twice each too, which is pretty handy.

As for the question, with all due respect there's no such think as a "weakest" player who won ten slams. To win ten slams you have to have been a pretty phenomenal tennis player, in any era.

eraldeen wrote:Out of this group is Nadal the player with the weakest resume?

Federer
Sampras
Emerson
Laver
Borg
Tilden
Nadal

You. For, writing the fifty billionth 'let's disrepsect Nadal' article.

I'm not certain how there can be a "weakest" person, when they've achieved the the one thing that only six others have managed to do - but there you go, I'm an optimist and appreciate the achievements of others

I also wonder how on earth that quesiton can ever be asked when Ndal's one more than half his Slams by beating the GOAT

But if you want an answer, then I'll give you one - Sampras

Tenez wrote: I am not particularly impressed by winning the 4 slams. It doesn;t mean much anymore. And that is proven by the fact that the same top 4 players reach the semis of the 4 slams without any particular difficulty....as long as they are fit enough!

Nothing to do with them being perhaps the best Top 4, we've even seen in terms of what they can do with a Tennis raquet, eh Tenez??

Problem is with this kind of negative pragmatic view towards Nadal, is that inevitably the spot light falls on Roger. I mean are we impressed by him winning the four slams, given that the only time achieved it when Nadal play

Sauce for the goose and all that!!

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez wrote: I am not particularly impressed by winning the 4 slams. It doesn;t mean much anymore. And that is proven by the fact that the same top 4 players reach the semis of the 4 slams without any particular difficulty....as long as they are fit enough!

Nothing to do with them being perhaps the best Top 4, we've even seen in terms of what they can do with a Tennis raquet, eh Tenez??

Problem is with this kind of negative pragmatic view towards Nadal, is that inevitably the spot light falls on Roger. I mean are we impressed by him winning the four slams, given that the only time achieved it when Nadal play

Sauce for the goose and all that!!

Incidentally, I meant the best Top 4 as a group playing at the same time, not the best ever four - before the catcalling starts!!

[quote="banbrotam"]

Tenez wrote: Nothing to do with them being perhaps the best Top 4, we've even seen in terms of what they can do with a Tennis raquet, eh Tenez??

One of them, yes. But the other 3 haven't got particularly amazing shots. Do you honesly think their shot making ability is superior to Tsonga, Nalbandian or Dolgo?

I know it's a sensitive subject for you but do you think Murray's FH is as good as Dolgo's?

[quote="Tenez"]

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez wrote: Nothing to do with them being perhaps the best Top 4, we've even seen in terms of what they can do with a Tennis raquet, eh Tenez??

One of them, yes. But the other 3 haven't got particularly amazing shots. Do you honesly think their shot making ability is superior to Tsonga, Nalbandian or Dolgo?

Yes, a thousand times yes. I've seen Murray play shots which no one else in the world would have attempted, let alone make. Same with Nadal, same with Djokovic. More talented than ball-bashing Tsonga, yes by quite some margin. Nalbandian is talented (on a similar level to Davydenko for me) but you never see him produce the kind of shots the top 4 can come up with. Dolgo's a maverick, which is why I love him, but talent wise he's not in Murray or any other of the top 4's league. The other day it was the BH the barometer of talent, now suddenly it's the forehand? So Soderling, Berdych are more talented than Murray because they have better forehands? Give me strength

[quote="Tenez"]

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez wrote: Nothing to do with them being perhaps the best Top 4, we've even seen in terms of what they can do with a Tennis raquet, eh Tenez??

One of them, yes. But the other 3 haven't got particularly amazing shots. Do you honesly think their shot making ability is superior to Tsonga, Nalbandian or Dolgo?

I know it's a sensitive subject for you but do you think Murray's FH is as good as Dolgo's?

Federer was admired for his wonderfully sublime backhand than his forehand and I've not particularly noticed that Dolgo's forehand is that much better than the ever improving Murray one

And I'm not interested either. The forehand is always going to be the standard shot of any decent Tennis player.

However, given Murray's relative success without a forehand (as you clearly imply) it show as hell shows how important it is to have the all-round subtle skills, i.e. the ability to return the ball with interest

i.e. talent isn't about having a great forehand. If it is then Lendl's obviously the GOAT!!

But I don't expect you to agree, but as usual have one rule for Fed (obviously his slam was more worthy given that he won the French without his great nemisis entering as opposed to Nadal who's won all four with Fed actually entering )

And of course not having a super duper ace forehand means you've no skills as Murray's 20 titles clearly shows

I'm convinced that you're Alan Partridge's script writer. You constant ironic mutterings are classics, sheer classics

To MfC...

I call this fanatism cause the shots you see Murray pull look much nicer to you than they actually are. Trust me, I might be a Nadal basher, I am no Murray basher. Being successful at tennis requires much more than having nice shots. This is why Nadal, Murray and Djoko are now ahead of Federer.

You vision that because you are higher in ranking makes you more talented is too simplistic and plain wrong. But I doubt you want to see it that way of course.

And in fact you support my above point cause you say Murray has teh best shots in teh world "no one else in the world would have attempted, let alone make"...yet he is only number 3, even was number 4 despite those shots not so long ago.

[quote="Mad for Chelsea"]

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez wrote: Nothing to do with them being perhaps the best Top 4, we've even seen in terms of what they can do with a Tennis raquet, eh Tenez??

One of them, yes. But the other 3 haven't got particularly amazing shots. Do you honesly think their shot making ability is superior to Tsonga, Nalbandian or Dolgo?

Yes, a thousand times yes. I've seen Murray play shots which no one else in the world would have attempted, let alone make. Name with Nadal, same with Djokovic. More talented than ball-bashing Tsonga, yes by quite some margin. Nalbandian is talented (on a similar level to Davydenko for me) but you never see him produce the kind of shots the top 4 can come up with. Dolgo's a maverick, which is why I love him, but talent wise he's not in Murray or any other of the top 4's league. The other day it was the BH the barometer of talent, now suddenly it's the forehand? So Soderling, Berdych are more talented than Murray because they have better forehands? Give me strength

In the world of Tenez. Del Potro is the GOAT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PObAsLG9MTw

yep, see this one every week at your local club...

and you're twisting again, I said all four made shots no one else would have attempted, and it's this shot-making ability which, like it or not, is why they're so far ahead of the rest of the world at the moment. To illustrate that, here's a telling stat:

every single tournament this year which has seen at least one of the top 4 enter has been won by a member of the top 4.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PObAsLG9MTw

yep, see this one every week at your local club...

and you're twisting again, I said all four made shots no one else would have attempted, and it's this shot-making ability which, like it or not, is why they're so far ahead of the rest of the world at the moment. To illustrate that, here's a telling stat:

every single tournament this year which has seen at least one of the top 4 enter has been won by a member of the top 4.

Very good shout 'Mad for Chelsea'

I dunno why people can't have a "I lived through the greatest Tennis era ever" approach rather than constantly questioning their talent. For instance we now know that the Hamilton / Alonso 2007 F1 Team mate season, was one of the most talented of all time - but sometimes we only see these things in hindsight

However, you don't need a pair of bifocals to see that this Top 4 are pretty special and the Top 3 can remain there, if their bodies hold out, for another 5 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqW-G7rK-I0&feature=related

about six minutes in, another shot that just makes you yawn it's so dull...

Tenez wrote:One of them, yes. But the other 3 haven't got particularly amazing shots. Do you honestly think their shot making ability is superior to Tsonga, Nalbandian or Dolgo?

Very interesting word 'honestly'. Here is a test of your 'honesty'.

Djokovic 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EGz8AeqAPY
Djokovic 2010 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N65j2A9XknY
Nadal and Murray 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkvRfzPLJtg
Murray 2010 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0qIgXhRKVk
Nadal 2009 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7kyUknYjM
Djokovic 2008 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNlyrcsUDBw
Nadal 2008 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzzXQKGED9Y

Edit: One more - Nadal and Murray 2010 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTE_o5Y7iRY

BTW, all players at this level have 'amazing' shots not just one player, otherwise they would not be playing at this level. It is just a matter of being a good observer and be able to discern them.

Laver - Are you addressing your post to me...or was it, in fact, intended to Banbro and MfC? Be honest.

Tenez, something that has always bothered me.
You bash Nadal and find faults in his play, yet he has beaten your man Federer in so many finals and on so many occasions. I've never understood why, because by doing that, you make your man look even worse (having been beaten by Nadal aka no talent etc)

YIMan - Are you also trying to bring this to a Fedal debate? You know where it leads from me!...Nadal bashing!

You can find lots of "faults" in Nadal's game but if there is something that compensate for it, then it can be successful. Very successful in fact....until someone who can challenge him in that "something" exposes his faults.

That "something" is his power and stamina.

I dont want to bring it to a Fedal debate, I just saw you on this thread so asked a question that has been bugging me for ages.

I thought I answered that one a 1000 times!

In short, if Nadal's energy drops slightly, like after slams he is vulnerable to a whole bunch of players that typically the other top 3 can handle even if slightly tired.

People call my views as Nadal bashing but frankly, I am just stating the obvious.

I's like Banbro and MfC claiming now that Murray has the best shots in the world. It's absurd for anyone watching tennis with a neutral eye. They think it's his superior shot making that made him win 3 tournaments in a row...but the last match I saw was won with a serve, a BH slice and a good pair of legs against a known menatlly weak player (Ferrer)...Not quite the most amazing shots, were they?

But because I don't see it like them,watch it! I am going to be turned into a Murray basher too.

I've seen Murray play shots which no one else in the world would have attempted, let alone make. Same with Nadal, same with Djokovic.

you're twisting my words again, Tenez. Please stop it. I never say Murray "has the best shots in the world". I said that he, like the rest of the top four, had the capacity to produce shots the rest of the world could only dream of. Be honest, have you ever seen Tsonga produce tennis like that of the videos posted by LF above?

As for the Shanghai final, if that's the way you think it happened, you obviously didn't bother watching the match, so there's no more to discuss on the matter.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

you're twisting my words again, Tenez. Please stop it. I never say Murray "has the best shots in the world". I said that he, like the rest of the top four, had the capacity to produce shots the rest of the world could only dream of. Be honest, have you ever seen Tsonga produce tennis like that of the videos posted by LF above?

Same thing really. The spectacular shots Murray, Djoko and Nadal make that the others can't are essentially about turning defense into attack or even bring a ball back others could not, whihc is essentially down to their physique. But in terms of providing pure shot making, they woudl not make the top 3, imo. Just watch Tsip v Djoko at USO 11 and you will see that in terms of shot making that did not require exceptional retriving or shots after long rallies, and you will see that even Tsip wasn;t far off.

As I said, your view of the game is much affected by the ranking of the player but there are more parameters which are needed to go up the ranking than being a great shot maker. And the most important one is actually being able to pull those shots over the distance of a single rallie as well as the distance of the match.

Tenez wrote:Laver - Are you addressing your post to me...or was it, in fact, intended to Banbro and MfC? Be honest.

It was addressed 'To Whomsoever It May Concern' and the claim that apart from one player, no one has 'amazing' shots'. For any observer of the game, it takes two or more players to produce 'amazing' shots. The videos show the ability of 'great' players to produce 'amazing' shots.

Personal preferences are just that, personal. If Federer can produce 'amazing' shots, he needs to because of the quality of the opposition. He does not produce amazing shots against James Sekulov, does he? Because he does not need to. The lack of observation in these videos where both players produce amazing shots is what I wanted you to see, and which you clearly failed to.

The ability to retrieve 'amazing' shots is also 'talent' - not just power and stamina.

As WoW's link shows, a very limited and biased view of Tennis that you have, and you have the right to continue that.

Tenez wrote:That "something" is his power and stamina.

Watch the Federer-Nadal 2009 AO or the W 2008 final.

Banbro,

At least get your facts straight.

Federer won the FO and Nadal was playing, not as you stated 'given that he won the French without his great nemisis entering as opposed to Nadal who's won all four with Fed actually entering'.

Nadal entered and looked as good as ever until Soderling played the match of his life and kicked his big butt.

Also, Fed has not been more known for his 'wonderfully sublime backhand than his forehand'. The Fed FH has been the most feared shot on tour (and still is) for a decade. His back hand has always been considered his relatively weaker side. Of course the SHBH looks great aesthetically but it most certainly hasn't been the shot that Fed has been most associated with.

With regards to the OP. It just appears to be a re-hashing of the GOAT debate.

Personally I believe there is an elite group comprising of Fed, Laver, Sampras and Borg.

Nadal straddles this group and the group below. I do not believe that slams are the be all and end all of this debate. It should be based on the overall record and Nadal is still lacking in his overall record. There appears to be a haste amongst his supporters to herald him as one of the elite GOAT candidates, perhaps they feel his time is limited and thus an urgency to propel his legacy prematurely forward.

The only reason why Nadal is mentioned so often with this group is because of his H-2-H with Federer as a result of the worst possible match-up for the latter.

Otherwise, it could be argued that his overall record is no better than that of Aggasi, Connors or Lendl. They may have won less slams but they (to date - and we can only make our asssertions based on the present) have won many more overall titles. In particular Lendl and Connors, who both have over 90 tour titles compared to Nadal's 46 and spent over 270 weeks at number one, compared to Nadal's 102 weeks.

How can a player who has only managed two seasons at the top of the rankings in his entire career, and thus been second best or worse for three-quarters of his career, be considered a candidate for GOAT?

The Nadal advocates also like to throw in a fair few red herrings such as the Olympic gold, has no value in terms of tennis legacy, indeed most of the GOAT candidates did not even compete at the Olympics; Davis Cup, which being a team event is completely irrelevant.

Ultimately Nadal's record reads as that of a great clay-courter (perhaps the greatest of all time) who had reasonable, but not consistent, success outside of his favoured surface.

Undoubtedly he has also been a huge beneficiary of the homogenisation of the surfaces. There is absolutely no way that Rafa would have won two Wimbledon titles had he had played on old school grass courts. The same cannot be said for Federer who beat Sampras (when he was defending champion) on the faster, lower bouncing grass of Wimbledon. Personally, I believe that Borg's accomplishment of winning so many FO's and W's is greater than the career slam achieved by Fed and Rafa in today's playing conditions. Likewise Agassi's career slam can be considered greater given the disparity between courts in his era.



emancipator

emancipator wrote:The Nadal advocates also like to throw in a fair few red herrings such as the Olympic gold, has no value in terms of tennis legacy, indeed most of the GOAT candidates did not even compete at the Olympics; Davis Cup, which being a team event is completely irrelevant.

Federer seems to disagree with you. Federer has participated in 2000, 2004, 2008 (and plans to in 2012, and perhaps 2016) Olympics.

"The gold medal in the London Olympics, at Wimbledon. That gold medal, I still don't have it, but Olympic gold has always represented something special to me," Federer made his ambitions clear in his recent interview in French magazine "L'Equipe."

http://m.ibtimes.com/roger-federer-returns-atp-credit-suisse-novak-djokovic-235160.html

" The only reason why Nadal is mentioned so often with this group is because of his H-2-H with Federer as a result of the worst possible match-up for the latter. "

No it's that at the age of 25 he has won 10 slams. This done in an era where he has competed with Federer who I think most would agree is definitely in the highest echelon. Don't see anyone on here claiming that Nadal is the GOAT just pointing out that he has already achieved to a very high standard and has the time (fitness permitting) to achieve much more.

Laverfan,

Fed said that Olympic gold represents something special to him, and I'm sure it does.

For Sampras it meant so little that he didn't bother to turn up!

Either way that's a personal reflection of a particular player.

Olympic Gold is not considered important in terms of legacy. The olympics has historically never signified a great deal in the tennis world. Tennis was absent from the OG for most of it's history. Indeed it was hardly mentioned as a great achievement until rafa won it and then all of a sudden the Rafanatics started to blow it out of all proportion.

Many of them suggest that it surpasses the WTF's in terms of achievement - ridiculous.

In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but from the original list posted by the OP, Nadal and Fed are the only ones to have even competed in the OG.

'Fitness permitting' - another Nadal myth.

I would have thought that 2011 would have blown that one out of the water.

emancipator wrote:'Fitness permitting' - another Nadal myth.

I would have thought that 2011 would have blown that one out of the water.

You interpret this differently from what I meant. That was that given Nadal's style of play there have always been questions about how long his career will be. So given his age he seems to have plenty years left to play but that may not be the case.

Calder106 wrote:" The only reason why Nadal is mentioned so often with this group is because of his H-2-H with Federer as a result of the worst possible match-up for the latter. "

No it's that at the age of 25 he has won 10 slams. This done in an era where he has competed with Federer who I think most would agree is definitely in the highest echelon. Don't see anyone on here claiming that Nadal is the GOAT just pointing out that he has already achieved to a very high standard and has the time (fitness permitting) to achieve much more.

Calder,

The attempts to crown Nadal as the GOAT were starting to reach fever pitch after the USO 2010. There were countless articles all over the internet promoting this idea. Johnny Mac (the ultimate bandwagonner) said that an arguement could be made for Nadal being the GOAT.

Most advocates used his H2H against Fed as evidence of this. His record of 10 slams, 46 titles (32 on clay) and 102 weeks at number one is just too thin to put him in the same coversation as the other main candidates, hence the constant reference to the skewed H2H. If Nadal had a losing or even H2H with Fed he would not be considered a GOAT candidate.

Does that mean he is not a great player or that he hasn't achieved incredible success? Of course not. But he certainly isn't a GOAT candidate based on his current record.

As for the future, well, certainly things may change. However nothing should be taken for granted; 2011 (when Rafa was fit and hungry throughout) has shown this. Early success does not always translate to continued success; Hingis, Borg, Austin are just a few examples of this.

emancipator wrote:Laverfan,

Fed said that Olympic gold represents something special to him, and I'm sure it does.

For Sampras it meant so little that he didn't bother to turn up!

Either way that's a personal reflection of a particular player.

Olympic Gold is not considered important in terms of legacy. The olympics has historically never signified a great deal in the tennis world. Tennis was absent from the OG for most of it's history. Indeed it was hardly mentioned as a great achievement until rafa won it and then all of a sudden the Rafanatics started to blow it out of all proportion.

Many of them suggest that it surpasses the WTF's in terms of achievement - ridiculous.

In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but from the original list posted by the OP, Nadal and Fed are the only ones to have even competed in the OG.

Of the original list only Tilden, Sampras, Nadal, and Federer have had the chance of playing in the Olympics as it was not the Olympic sport from 1924-1988. Agassi who you mention previously obviously thought it was worthwhile.

From a personal point of view I would not have Tennis in the Olympics so agree with you that I do not see it as important in terms of legacy.

I'm not trying to denigrate Rafa's achievements but it does irk me that some people cannot maintain some sense of perspective.

Nadal is a fantastic player, obviously talented; he is not however as naturally talented as some of the other past greats. I'm thinking of Agassi, Federer, Laver, Borg, sampras, all of whom had a natural aptitude for the game that I believe surpasses Nadal's.

Without sounding like a Tenez clone, I don't think it is far fetched to say that Rafa relies heavily on his physicality to win matches. He is the ultimate warrior, the never say die champion, he grinds until his opponent's will is broken. That does not mean he can't play great shots, he clearly can. However, he has a more limited game which his physicality allows him to make the most of.

I could never consider him to be a greater player than Federer even if he were to eventually win more slams than Fed. Federer is a genius, a natural who plays instinctively and with flair. He can do anything on a tennis court.

emancipator wrote:I could never consider him to be a greater player than Federer even if he were to eventually win more slams than Fed.

It is clearly a subjective, personal opinion.

emancipator wrote:Federer is a genius, a natural who plays instinctively and with flair. He can do anything on a tennis court.

I personally do not consider that, admiration for Nadal and Federer, needs to be mutually exclusive. They are both excellent players and have given the fans memorable tennis. (personal opinion - )

As I said earlier I think that most people would agree that Federer has been(and still is) top drawer. He has been the most natural player in the mens game over the last decade. The others you mention were also great players who gave a lot to tennis. If the question had been on natural talent then npo problem.

Yes Nadal does this in a different way but that's the beauty of the game. It's a head to head sport where you have to maximise your strengths (talent, physical and mental) to overcome that of your opponent. Hopefully we will see many more great games between Federer, Nadal (plus Djokovic and others who can step up) over the next few years.

Yes.. you're right. It would be a dull sport without it's contrasting characters.

I have nothing but admiration for Rafa's attitude and achievements. The game needs him just as it needs Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga etc.

one..

thousand....

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalleluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuujah

Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah





emancipator

emancipator wrote:Yes.. you're right. It would be a dull sport without it's contrasting characters.

I have nothing but admiration for Rafa's attitude and achievements. The game needs him just as it needs Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga etc.

Fully agree. Could you get the message to Tenez, who, whenever a person points out the abilities of his non favoured three has difficulty in understanding what they are saying and consequently misquotes them!!