Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[El Dude]

It is meant to be a bit provocative and to be clear, as I have said for years, I tend to take the "Herd of GOATs" view over the singular GOAT theory, mainly because I think you have to judge players by the era they play in, and there's no way to compare Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Rod Laver, and the Big Three.

That said, if a gun is held to my head and I have to choose only one, Novak is approaching the point that, when all is said and done, he might be hard to argue against. Consider how the Big Three currently rank:

Grand Slams: Roger 20, Rafa 20, Novak 19
Weeks at #1: Novak 323, Roger 310, Rafa 209
Titles: Roger 103, Rafa 88, Novak 84
Year-end #1s: Novak 6, Roger 5, Rafa 5
Tour Finals: Roger 6, Novak 5, Rafa 0
Masters: Rafa 36, Novak 36, Roger 28
Records against the other two: Novak 57-51, Rafa 52-46, Roger 39-51

It may be that, right now, their total career resumes are about as equal as they'll ever be. While accumulative statistics don't tell the whole picture, it is looking like Novak will end up with the lead in Grand Slams, Weeks at #1, Year-end #1s, Masters, winning records against both Roger and Rafa, and maybe has a shot at titles and Tour Finals. If he can win an Olympics Gold this year (If it happens) it will be icing on the cake.

Or we can look at it this way:

Novak vs. Roger: Roger's claim was that he led the "Triple Crown" of tennis stats: Slams, Weeks at #1 (more important than year-end, imo), and Titles (or, at least, he leads Rafa and Novak, but is still second to Connors in the Open Era). But Novak has surpassed him in weeks and will probably surpass him in Grand Slams, Rafa possibly as well. Novak's counting stats will almost be superior to Roger's in almost every way. And, of course, the Serb has a 27-23 edge in the head-to-head, and a very solid 11-6 lead at Slams. I'd say that, right now, they're about equal, which means that Novak will almost certainly surpass Roger. When all is said and done, Roger might only lead Novak in career titles and match wins, but not much else.

Roger's path to reclaiming the crown to singular GOATdom is very slim indeed: Not only does he probably need to win one more Slam, but he needs Novak and Rafa to not equal or surpass and essentially freeze their career accomplishments. This is very unlikely to happen.

Novak vs. Rafa: Rafa's overall problem is that he's equal or behind the other two in most ways, statistically speaking. His chance of claiming singular GOAT would be to end his career with the most Grand Slams and then maybe butter it up with edges in the head-to-head. He'll have the latter over Roger, but Novak leads him 30-28, although Rafa holds a 10-7 edge at Slams. Novak has a 16-13 edge in finals. Rafa also has two significant issues: he's way behind in the weeks at #1, and he's never won even a single World Tour Finals. Now any discussion of Rafa has to include his clay dominance, but that doesn't really factor into the GOAT conversation, imo. Clay GOAT, of course. But overall? It just gets mixed in with everything else. But what about the Olympics? It is a nice title to have, and maybe takes the edge off the lack of a WTF, but in the end doesn't have the clout of any of the records mentioned. Lot's of great players haven't won or played in the Olympics, while almost no all-great times haven't won at least a single WTF (among Open Era greats, only Rafa and Wilander, and Wilander is in the latter half of the top 20).

Rafa's path to singular GOATdom is a bit more possible than Roger's, but still rather unlikely: He needs to win at least one or two more Slams, and possibly regain the H2H over Novak and maybe win an ATP (I know his fans try to minimize this, but I think the fact that he's never one it is a significant black mark on his record).

And of course Novak now has a double career Slam, an accomplishment that Roger will never equal, and Rafa is unlikely to.

My verdict:
In this moment, I think we can still say that they're all roughly equal. A year or two ago I'd still give the edge to Roger, but I don't think I can do that anymore. I think both Rafa and Novak have equaled him, at least when you take everything into account.

Going forward, I think the most likely outcome is that Novak will end up being seen as the first among near-equals. The three will be forever linked, and in a way Roger first established the idea of GOAT, then was vanquished by Rafa, who in turn is being surpassed by Novak. Years from now, I'd guess that they'll be considered the top three with everyone else (with the possible except of Rod Laver) being well behind, but Novak as the consensus #1. Whether or not Rafa claims #2 over Roger probably depends upon his final GS tally, unless of course he bulks up those weeks at #1 and wins an elusive WTF.

So congrats to Novak and his fans. For what it's worth (not very much), I think he is--or very shortly will be--the second best choice for the question: Who is the tennis GOAT? (The best answer being, "Depends on the era and context").

 

[dante1976]

If he take another RG (minimum 3 slams each), snatch another year end as No1 and ATP Finals title... or two... he absolutely would be a GOAT, no BS to justify otherwise.

"offtopic": @El Dude, I was offline tennis forums for couple of years and I was wondering where can I find your blog? Use to read it before, don't know if you are still writing?

 

[El Dude]

If he take another RG (minimum 3 slams each), snatch another year end as No1 and ATP Finals title... or two... he absolutely would be a GOAT, no BS to justify otherwise.

"offtopic": @El Dude, I was offline tennis forums for couple of years and I was wondering where can I find your blog? Use to read it before, don't know if you are still writing?

Ah, thanks for the interest. Haven't been blogging these days. I was really only doing it to share my research, as I tried to catch up on tennis history and statistics. But who knows, maybe I'll do something and post it here, if I feel inspired. I've dabbled with a couple ideas, mostly around the emergence of young guys, and maybe revisit the idea of "benchmarks" that young (future elite) players pass on their way up.

 

[the AntiPusher]

No..is my answer and your post suggest that Rafa was nothing more than passing gas in the wind..( I don't have time to get into the weeds of this..maybe Moxie or Margaret may want to provide some valid stats to support the pro Nadal Goat argument)

Novak is only 11 months younger than Rafa..Rafa turn pro a few years earlier but was a pure threat to Roger. Pre 2010, Novak's numbers vs Federer and Rafa was abysmal at best. Novak lost ever final to Rafa pre 2010..(I think )

Roger's numbers were extremely extraordinary one sided against Novak..before he began leaving his Prime..

Again. There's a 3 headed GOAT...you fill in the rest.

 

[Moxie]

I am inclined to agree that the Big Three will finish their career as a herd of GOATs, as you say. It's not to diminish the recent accomplishments of Novak, but their careers have been various across all of the years, and Novak's best years have been in the latter years of Fedal. It's just true.

Novak vs. Roger: Roger's claim was that he led the "Triple Crown" of tennis stats: Slams, Weeks at #1 (more important than year-end, imo), and Titles (or, at least, he leads Rafa and Novak, but is still second to Connors in the Open Era). But Novak has surpassed him in weeks and will probably surpass him in Grand Slams, Rafa possibly as well. Novak's counting stats will almost be superior to Roger's in almost every way. And, of course, the Serb has a 27-23 edge in the head-to-head, and a very solid 11-6 lead at Slams. I'd say that, right now, they're about equal, which means that Novak will almost certainly surpass Roger. When all is said and done, Roger might only lead Novak in career titles and match wins, but not much else.

Roger's path to reclaiming the crown to singular GOATdom is very slim indeed: Not only does he probably need to win one more Slam, but he needs Novak and Rafa to not equal or surpass and essentially freeze their career accomplishments. This is very unlikely to happen.

I think that Roger fans and even the powers that be in tennis are surprised and a bit befuddled that Roger didn't just end up being the GOAT. I don't think Roger's path to single GOATdom is merely slim, I think it is non-existent. (See my point as to yours about 3-headed hydra.)

Novak vs. Rafa: Rafa's overall problem is that he's equal or behind the other two in most ways, statistically speaking. His chance of claiming singular GOAT would be to end his career with the most Grand Slams and then maybe butter it up with edges in the head-to-head. He'll have the latter over Roger, but Novak leads him 30-28, although Rafa holds a 10-7 edge at Slams. Novak has a 16-13 edge in finals. Rafa also has two significant issues: he's way behind in the weeks at #1, and he's never won even a single World Tour Finals. Now any discussion of Rafa has to include his clay dominance, but that doesn't really factor into the GOAT conversation, imo. Clay GOAT, of course. But overall? It just gets mixed in with everything else. But what about the Olympics? It is a nice title to have, and maybe takes the edge off the lack of a WTF, but in the end doesn't have the clout of any of the records mentioned. Lot's of great players haven't won or played in the Olympics, while almost no all-great times haven't won at least a single WTF (among Open Era greats, only Rafa and Wilander, and Wilander is in the latter half of the top 20).

Rafa's path to singular GOATdom is a bit more possible than Roger's, but still rather unlikely: He needs to win at least one or two more Slams, and possibly regain the H2H over Novak and maybe win an ATP (I know his fans try to minimize this, but I think the fact that he's never one it is a significant black mark on his record).

And of course Novak now has a double career Slam, an accomplishment that Roger will never equal, and Rafa is unlikely to.

I don't think that Rafa gets singular GOAT-dom, either, but he's not really "behind" the others, in that he has Clay GOAT, which will not be taken away, ever or for a long time. I've made the point for a long time that, with both Roger and Novak for a long time to block him at HC/Grass Majors and YEC, and only Rafa himself to block them at RG, he's more than held his own. He has 4 x USO, 2 x W and 1 AO, which they were meant to be more apt to get, whereas, now including today, they have 3xRG combined. See my point? Same with weeks at #1.

My verdict:
In this moment, I think we can still say that they're all roughly equal. A year or two ago I'd still give the edge to Roger, but I don't think I can do that anymore. I think both Rafa and Novak have equaled him, at least when you take everything into account.

Going forward, I think the most likely outcome is that Novak will end up being seen as the first among near-equals. The three will be forever linked, and in a way Roger first established the idea of GOAT, then was vanquished by Rafa, who in turn is being surpassed by Novak. Years from now, I'd guess that they'll be considered the top three with everyone else (with the possible except of Rod Laver) being well behind, but Novak as the consensus #1. Whether or not Rafa claims #2 over Roger probably depends upon his final GS tally, unless of course he bulks up those weeks at #1 and wins an elusive WTF.

So congrats to Novak and his fans. For what it's worth (not very much), I think he is--or very shortly will be--the second best choice for the question: Who is the tennis GOAT? (The best answer being, "Depends on the era and context").

As bolded above, I think it was Sampras that first established the idea of GOAT, in tennis, but I think that really came from Jordan, in basketball. In any case, I agree with you that the 3 will be forever linked. The Federer-Nadal rivalry is already set as one of the great ones in tennis, and Djokovic shoe-horned himself in, but late to the party. He's done a great job of catching up, but it did come when most of their most dominant tennis was behind them. In part due to him, of course, particularly in the case of Nadal, but it's fair to say that Rafa has passing his salad days, too, when Novak found his second gear. Novak didn't pass either in the H2H until they were both rather longer in the tooth.

So, to reiterate, I think they will always, all 3, be spoken of in the same context and in this very great era for men's tennis. That said, the CYGS is still alive for Novak, and I'm pretty sure he's the favorite for Wimbledon. THAT would be something.

 

[MikeOne]

right now, it’s close.

all the points above are good ones. I think we have to focus on the most difficult achievements and completeness

so total # of titles isn’t really that meaningful to me. True measure of greatness is summoning your best in the bigger events, where the $$ and chunk of rankings are. No surprise novak, rafa and fed have absolutely dominated masters, atp finals and slams. Sustaining weeks at #1 is also very difficult

rafa is a bit of a contradiction, in one way he scores high in doing the impossible - 13 roland garros. This is a record that may never be broken... but it scores low in completeness..

Slams:

rafa: 13 RGs, 1 AO, 2 wimbledons, 4 USO
Fed: 1 RG, 6 AO, 8 wimbledons, 5 USO
djoker: 2 RG, 9 AO, 5 wimbledons, 3 USO

Fed and djoker are more balanced.

djoker has lead in total most important tournaments masters + at tour finals + slam wins

has record weeks at #1

not only does he have winning records against fed and rafa, he has beaten king of grass 3 times in wimbledon finals and has beaten king of clay more than any other, on clay (2 at RGs). So he has taken rafa and fed down, at their house.

he is the only one who won 4 slams in a row..

there is plenty already to put him at the top and he may add to his resume this year

 

[Denis]

Winning the FO this year is big. Djokovic has won every big tournament in tennis at least twice, including the slams. In addition to that, every stat that is used in the GOAT discussion is in his favour with the exception of the most important one, the amount of slams. Fedal's hopes of retaining some claim to GOAT rest on the new challengers finding a way to beat Djokovic. It's getting close. If Novak wins the calander slam, this discussion is over.

 

[tennisville]

You raise many valuable points. I first want to say that I never believed in GOAT and I still do not think there is one. It is impossible to compare different eras and there are too many variables to factor. Some of the points are

1. Australian Open not being competed in during the 70s and 80s
2. Top players not competing in slams before 1968

There are also other factors that keep on changing over time. To highlight

1. The CYGS was the most important criterion in the 70s. Borg mentioned he would play in Australia if he won the US Open. Had he known that number of slams would be the criteria, this would not have happened.
2. If Lendl had known the number of slams would play a huge part, he would have tried harder to win more RGs and probably not prepare much for Wimbledon if he did not believe he had a chance
3. It was the number of slams only when Sampras decided to go after Emerson. He decided to sacrifice RG and focus on Wimbledon from 1997. Had he known surface diversity might play a huge part, he would never make such a decision

These are some that come up at the top of my mind. There are so many more which I must be missing

So the question then instead becomes who is the best among the three. That is up for debate and they have coincided for a majority of time. My point here is that this is similar to us fans comparing movies based on the half-time intermission. Their movies are not complete and we should probably wait till the movies finish before we start comparing them against each other. For all we know, Federer might win Wimbledon and everything we say now has to get changed. Better to wait for the story to finish

My advice is to enjoy these three great players while we can. This becomes clearer after that crap Zverev Tsitsipas semi.

 

[tented]

I still prefer the concept put forth by @nehmeth: GOTE — Greatest Of Their Era. This is the best way to balance all of the differences which have affected the sport over the decades.

 

[shawnbm]

A herd of GOATS LOL!!! Me like. One thing that was hinted at by MikeOne is the balance of resume of Novak and Ol' Wodge (as an old trooper around here used to say) is the balance issue. When Federer and Nole were in their peak years (and this could be an extension of one for Novak) they won across all surfaces and really decimated their peers convincingly. Rafa does not quite have that like they did, the total dominance throughout the year like Fed in 2005-2007 or Novak in 2011 and 201 through the-French in 2016 (this year open?). I have no problem with the three of them being linked forever like Connors-Borg and McEnroe.

 

[Jelenafan]

I think with Rafa and Novak it is ongoing, personally my hunch is that Federer stats are done.

 

[tented]

I think with Rafa and Novak it is ongoing, personally my hunch is that Federer stats are done.

Yeah, he may win a smaller tournament (250 or 500), but his days of winning Masters and Majors are over, I suspect.

 

[shawnbm]

Yeah, he may win a smaller tournament (250 or 500), but his days of winning Masters and Majors are over, I suspect.

After what happened in 2-17 through SW19 in 2019, I can't necessarily count Federer out. He was playing at a very high level in 2019 at Wimbledon and if he can get back near that, he can win more events, even big ones. I don't think Paris and likely not New York, but the other two and some Masters events might be in play.

 

[tented]

After what happened in 2-17 through SW19 in 2019, I can't necessarily count Federer out. He was playing at a very high level in 2019 at Wimbledon and if he can get back near that, he can win more events, even big ones. I don't think Paris and likely not New York, but the other two and some Masters events might be in play.

The only reason I don’t think Roger is capable of such a high level again is because of the knee surgeries. If not for them, I would consider him to be one of the favorites at Wimbledon, as he proved in 2019.

 

[Moxie]

I still prefer the concept put forth by @nehmeth: GOTE — Greatest Of Their Era. This is the best way to balance all of the differences which have affected the sport over the decades.

Which everyone is still gaming around here...which of the 3 is the GOTE, and STILL think that's not going to be possible to peg one. At this high altitude of achievements.

A herd of GOATS LOL!!! Me like. One thing that was hinted at by MikeOne is the balance of resume of Novak and Ol' Wodge (as an old trooper around here used to say) is the balance issue. When Federer and Nole were in their peak years (and this could be an extension of one for Novak) they won across all surfaces and really decimated their peers convincingly. Rafa does not quite have that like they did, the total dominance throughout the year like Fed in 2005-2007 or Novak in 2011 and 201 through the-French in 2016 (this year open?). I have no problem with the three of them being linked forever like Connors-Borg and McEnroe.

Much is said about the "balance issue," as you cite above. I don't agree with this. Take everything of clay away, and Rafa still has a HOF career. But he's had Roger on one side and Novak on the other, in terms of time line, and they are more proficient on HC, which is 60% of the calendar. Novak has done better at W, basically in the absence of anyone else, but an aging Roger, and was capped by Murray there, too. They came at him from both sides of the age gap, but it was Rafa alone who held the line on clay and at RG. Some Fed fan poster tried to make a case that 13 wins at RG is bad because it makes Rafa's resume so unbalanced. There is nothing bad about winning 13 (and counting) Roland Garros titles. @MikeOne says "it scores low in completeness." Someone should remember that Sampras was for a brief moment considered the GOAT, and he never even won the FO. I agree with those that say you'll never untangle the 3. @Denis said if Novak wins the CYGS, the discussion is over. I don't even agree with that. At this late stage? No.

 

[roberto]

Wow Moxie you should apply to law school with that sculpted logic lol. You are the best at disguising Rafa fangirl behavior behind "logic" lol.
There is no question that Rafa is not the same level of "all around player" as Novak and Roger; but neither of them is anywhere close to his proficiency on clay. Those are just facts. I have the sense that you have jumped on the "too close to call" bandwagon because, if Novak keeps his momentum going, he's going to have it over Rafa on every major criteria except for clay.....

 

[Moxie]

Wow Moxie you should apply to law school with that sculpted logic lol. You are the best at disguising Rafa fangirl behavior behind "logic" lol.
There is no question that Rafa is not the same level of "all around player" as Novak and Roger; but neither of them is anywhere close to his proficiency on clay. Those are just facts. I have the sense that you have jumped on the "too close to call" bandwagon because, if Novak keeps his momentum going, he's going to have it over Rafa on every major criteria except for clay.....

Hey, roberto, thanks for the compliment on the logic. It IS logic, and I've never disguised my fan position. But how do you know I'm NOT a lawyer?

There actually IS a question that Rafa is "not at the same level of "all around player" as Novak and Roger. As you say, they are nowhere near his proficiency on clay, and clay is a surface that tennis is played on. Don't pretend that "all-around" is about HC and indoor HC, (with a smattering of grass,) and clay is an outlier. Their clay resumes are much thinner than Rafa's, particularly Roger's, so it's not like they're as all-around as you claim. I think we can say that Roger is the grass-GOAT, and Rafa is the only one who beat him there in his salad days. And Rafa has owned Novak at the USO more than the reverse, so there's that. Novak can lay claim to having beaten Rafa twice at Roland Garros, but once was in 2015, when everyone beat Rafa, the nadir of his career, and once was last Sunday, when Rafa was 35. Novak claimed that Rafa was "beatable" at RG in 2006, boldly. Well, it only took him 15 years to really prove that. If a guy gets old enough, eventually you might be right.

It's funny that you accuse me of jumping on the "too close to call" bandwagon. I have actually thought that about the Fed fans. They were 100% down with Roger as the GOAT until Rafa hit #18, (and certainly when he hit #19, when some even bailed from these forums.) Then they started to be willing to negotiate the co-GOATness. As a Nadal fan, I have long-known what it would take a lot to dislodge Roger. And that, at best, they would likely be co-GOATs. I don't know if you're a Novak fan, but you should also accept that, if you are. The powers that be in tennis buy into Roger's smooth brand of tennis so completely that he will be nearly impossible to take out of the conversation for the top spot. Aside from that politics, there is enough stretch of best era for each and achievements for each, that they will never disentangle this era of Top 3, IMHO. Nor, really should they. This has been an amazing era for these 3, and just to take it more to the prose version of it, it has been fantastic. If you really want a GOTE (greatest of this era,) I think there is always going to be an argument. Even if Djokovic does more going forward, he was late to the party, and that is part of the argument. There was already Roger v. Rafa, which is considered one of the great rivalries in sport. Not just tennis. What was epic about that, and what it did for the sport, will not be undone.

 

[roberto]

Novak has won many titles on clay including many masters, but only 2 slams on clay. That's why I said that Nadal is the clear favorite on clay. But since 13/20 of his titles are on clay, he is thin in slam achievement on other surfaces vs. the other two guys. That's why I say novak's a more all-round player except doesn't compare with Rafa on clay; same with Roger. No need to embellish beyond that. And you may love to ruminate about the Roger/Rafa rivalry which is indeed great, but Novak is Rafa's age contemporary; he just matured/succeeded later. And they've played each other far more than Roger/Rafa. Again: If Novak wins on every measurable count of greatness save clay, it's gonna be hard to argue "they're all the greatest". Although I'm sure you'll continue to try. And I know you're not a lawyer based on previous statements about your profession....

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, he may win a smaller tournament (250 or 500), but his days of winning Masters and Majors are over, I suspect.

I dunno, considering that Novak and Rafa aren't as gung-ho about every Masters like they used to be. From what I saw of Roger's performance at Roland Garros, he is still capable of beating most other players, and maybe even those two--or at least Rafa--on grass or fast hards.

Meaning, I won't count the old guy out. Yet.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I am inclined to agree that the Big Three will finish their career as a herd of GOATs, as you say. It's not to diminish the recent accomplishments of Novak, but their careers have been various across all of the years, and Novak's best years have been in the latter years of Fedal. It's just true.



I think that Roger fans and even the powers that be in tennis are surprised and a bit befuddled that Roger didn't just end up being the GOAT. I don't think Roger's path to single GOATdom is merely slim, I think it is non-existent. (See my point as to yours about 3-headed hydra.)


I don't think that Rafa gets singular GOAT-dom, either, but he's not really "behind" the others, in that he has Clay GOAT, which will not be taken away, ever or for a long time. I've made the point for a long time that, with both Roger and Novak for a long time to block him at HC/Grass Majors and YEC, and only Rafa himself to block them at RG, he's more than held his own. He has 4 x USO, 2 x W and 1 AO, which they were meant to be more apt to get, whereas, now including today, they have 3xRG combined. See my point? Same with weeks at #1.



As bolded above, I think it was Sampras that first established the idea of GOAT, in tennis, but I think that really came from Jordan, in basketball. In any case, I agree with you that the 3 will be forever linked. The Federer-Nadal rivalry is already set as one of the great ones in tennis, and Djokovic shoe-horned himself in, but late to the party. He's done a great job of catching up, but it did come when most of their most dominant tennis was behind them. In part due to him, of course, particularly in the case of Nadal, but it's fair to say that Rafa has passing his salad days, too, when Novak found his second gear. Novak didn't pass either in the H2H until they were both rather longer in the tooth.

So, to reiterate, I think they will always, all 3, be spoken of in the same context and in this very great era for but men's tennis. That said, the CYGS is still alive for Novak, and I'm pretty sure he's the favorite for Wimbledon. THAT would be something.

This what I'm saying. .All due respect I guess but El Dude's analysis of Rafa's legacy was pretty much a fart in the wind. Rafa is the at the top level with Federer because he was relevant to all the top pros especially Roger whereas Novak was just a fly on the elephant's (Federer) ass. To just look at the past 7 years is very derelict from even the most novice of tennis fans.