Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,113
Reactions
5,762
Points
113
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)
It does? Really? I think you're just defending your guy. I'm no Rafa-basher, AP, as I think you know. I just think that his record is more problematic than the other two. He's got one thing the other two don't have, which is utter dominance on one surface. I don't think anyone will ever equal him in that way, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.

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.
Well, I generally agree. I just think we should be honest about where it seems we are heading: Novak's career resume is going to end up being the best of the three. Do you disagree?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,113
Reactions
5,762
Points
113
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.
Hmm...I don't think this is fair to Novak, at least as far as Rafa is concerned. When Novak reached GOAT form in 2011, Rafa was still very much in his prime, and for a couple more years after that (through mid-2014, I'd say). Rafa and Novak played leapfrog for a bit, but overall Novak has been the superior player since 2011.
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 mostly agree, but would at least say there's a non-zero chance. But very slim indeed.
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.
The problem with clay GOAT - as impressive as it is - is that while the total number of Slams and tournaments add to his overall resume, the more "Clay GOATier" he gets doesn't really add much. I mean, it is kind of similar to the total Slam counts. Is a 20 Slam winner really better than a 19 Slam winner? Does that one Slam matter? Would Rafa be greater if he had 14 Roland Garros titles vs. 13 or even 12? At a certain point, he can't get any "Clay GOATier," and what matters is his overall resume, however he comes by it.

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.
Wasn't it Gretzky, even before Jordan? Anyhow, as I said, I think Novak's performance against Rafa in 2011-14, when they were both in prime form, speaks otherwise to what you say here. Sure, Novak padded his resume in 2015-16, when Roger and Rafa both weren't what they were--and before their resurgence in 2017. But Novak more than held his own against prime Rafa.
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.
As I said in the original post, I think that is the best and truest answer, at least until Novak (Or Rafa) discovers Utnapishtim's plant and wins five more Slams and blows past everyone else by three or four Slams. But it would really require that, as I think the difference in Slams--at the point they're at--is rather negligible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,113
Reactions
5,762
Points
113
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
Yes, I agree, but total titles isn't meaningless. But like you, I think the most important records are Slam count and weeks at #1, and everything else is secondary (or tertiary).

Slam count is sort of the "showy" benchmark. It is what is most meaningful to players and also speaks to their very best form. Weeks at #1, on the other hand, speaks more to sustained greatness and consistency. I think of Ivan Lendl in the 80s, who was never really much better than other elites, but he was the most consistent. Same with Connors, who was really only the very best for a year or two.

Actually, it might be interesting to look at year-end #1s as a percentage of points over #2 and #3, see how people measure up. Meaning, not just finishing as #1, but how much more dominant they were.
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
Yep, agreed. Even Ultimate Tennis Statistics has him just behind Roger and leaving Rafa behind in their "GOAT Rankings." He'll probably pass Roger by year's end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,113
Reactions
5,762
Points
113
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.
Yes, I agree, which is why I say "herd." I think this extends beyond just the Big Three and includes the GOTEs of past eras: Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, etc.

There's just no way to compare widely divergent eras. I mean, I'm a big baseball fan, and while I think that the overall skill level improves incrementally over the years and that if you put Mike Trout back in the 20s as he is right now, he'd make Babe Ruth look like a chump. But if Mike Trout grew up in that era, he probably wouldn't have been the player Ruth was. And of course in baseball, statistics fluctuate (like when Yaz won the batting title in the late 60s hitting .301!).

I think the tennis version is the weight put on different tournaments at different times. Rod Laver had that one last great year in 1969, but despite never reaching another Slam QF, was still probably the best player in the sport for another couple years (through 1971 at least, I'd say), but wasn't playing most Slams and focusing on the WCT.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,113
Reactions
5,762
Points
113
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.
This is silly and just fallacious. No one is looking at just the "past 7 years." You're doing a Ricardo, weakening any legitimate point you make with ad hominems.
 

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,475
Reactions
2,563
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Yes, I agree, which is why I say "herd." I think this extends beyond just the Big Three and includes the GOTEs of past eras: Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, etc.

There's just no way to compare widely divergent eras. I mean, I'm a big baseball fan, and while I think that the overall skill level improves incrementally over the years and that if you put Mike Trout back in the 20s as he is right now, he'd make Babe Ruth look like a chump. But if Mike Trout grew up in that era, he probably wouldn't have been the player Ruth was. And of course in baseball, statistics fluctuate (like when Yaz won the batting title in the late 60s hitting .301!).

I think the tennis version is the weight put on different tournaments at different times. Rod Laver had that one last great year in 1969, but despite never reaching another Slam QF, was still probably the best player in the sport for another couple years (through 1971 at least, I'd say), but wasn't playing most Slams and focusing on the WCT.
Hard to believe Laver craved that WCT Final title more than anything by the time he left the game! I remember a documentary called "One More For The Rocket" which chronicled his attempts to win that championship and the systematic defeats from 2 classic finals against Rosewall to his last great chance in '75 losing to Borg in the SF! He might have gotten it if he had managed to get to the final! His pigeon, Arthur Ashe was waiting for him! :yes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: El Dude

the AntiPusher

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,008
Reactions
7,120
Points
113
It does? Really? I think you're just defending your guy. I'm no Rafa-basher, AP, as I think you know. I just think that his record is more problematic than the other two. He's got one thing the other two don't have, which is utter dominance on one surface. I don't think anyone will ever equal him in that way, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.


Well, I generally agree. I just think we should be honest about where it seems we are heading: Novak's career resume is going to end up being the best of the three. Do you disagree?
No..but Novak is going to be the favorite on the faster surfaces..Yet Rafa is the two time no pandemic defending champion at USO .I and a few other poster felt it was a mistake to pass on coming to New York City last year..If Rafa was in that tournament regardless of Novak's dismissal. Rafa would have captured both USO and RG for sure. Number #21 is still achievable for Nadal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El Dude

the AntiPusher

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,008
Reactions
7,120
Points
113
This is silly and just fallacious. No one is looking at just the "past 7 years." You're doing a Ricardo, weakening any legitimate point you make with ad hominems.
If not looking at the past 7 years..spit out the numbers 2006-2014.. Look at the numbers during Roger's prime years.


H2H
Roger vs Novak
19____________ 18

Grand Slams
6 _____________ 6
______________________


H2H
Rafa vs Roger
21 _____________ 9

Grand Slams
9 _________________ 2

__________________________
H2H
Rafa vs Novak
23 __________________ 19

Grand Slams
Rafa vs Novak
8 ____________________ 3

Olympics
1 __________________ 0

How can you be so dismissive by calling it is silly and dont compare me to anyone. I dont compare you to Cali! How in the HELL is Novak the GOAT
 
Last edited:

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,601
Reactions
14,760
Points
113
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....
Oh, you HAVE been paying attention. Good. And I will poke holes in your argument. I'm not the only one that can be perceived as arguing from a fannish position. You are, too, and I'll make my case, as you will make yours.

Any notion that Nadal is "thin" in achievement at Majors is ridiculous. He has 20 of them, and on all surfaces. He was actually the first man to hold Majors on clay, grass and HC in the history of the ATP. Personally, I get very tired of Novak fans pointing out that Rafa and Nole are essentially contemporaries, except that Novak matured later. To that point, Nadal peaked earlier. So do you want to make the excuse for Novak that he took longer to mature? Then you don't get to say that he and Nadal are essentially the same age. Rafa dominated him earlier, but that never seems to count with some people. Nadal has also played 79 more matches than Djokovic, which is more than a year by any winning standards, and still has a higher win percentage. So, in tennis years, it's more than a year.

There was an entire era of Federer and Nadal before Novak got to his 2.0. You may hate that people continue to embrace that, but I assure you that it's part of tennis lore and history that you can't erase. Both Federer and Nadal had hit their stride, and Roger was rather past it, before Novak found the his way to a better version of his tennis. It will always be factored in. If he was so great, why didn't he drop into the party when he was more age-appropriate, if you want to make the point that he's only 1 year younger than Nadal? He won one Major, young, then didn't win another for 3 years. He was still a bridesmaid when Rafa and Roger were beating each other up for Majors. The time-line will always be an issue, which is why most say they'll always be spoken of in the same breath. For all the crowing about how he has a favorable h2h v. Fedal, it's not THAT favorable, given the number of times they've played, and it took him years to get there, as they were so far ahead. You don't like to hear it, obviously, but it did benefit Novak to have come into his own later in this era. Let's face it: the Nole Slam came when his 2 chief rivals weren't much there to counter him. And I think we've all agreed that the otherwise competition is not so much, even now. We keep waiting for it, and it keeps not happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the AntiPusher

Denis

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,067
Reactions
691
Points
113
Lol, the way the discussion has evolved around GOATness is quite funny. Now that Djokovic is getting every possible serious achievement put forward in this debate over the years, we see some Fedal fans cling on to 1) GOAT is not a real discussion, we need to be talking about GOTES 2) Fedal is more popular! They wear nicer dresses etc. 3) Djokovic was not all that great in that one year that Nadal was in his prime or something. LOL the arguments are getting weaker and weaker. I feel like Novak Djokovic is the karma of tennis to those Fedal fans.
 
Last edited:

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,475
Reactions
2,563
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Lol, the way the discussion has evolved around GOATness is quite funny. Now that Djokovic is getting every possible serious achievement put forward in this debate over the years, we see Fedal fans cling on to 1) GOAT is not a real discussion, we need to be talking about GOTES 2) Fedal is more popular! They wear nicer dresses etc. 3) Djokovic was not all that great in that one year that Nadal was in his prime or something. LOL the arguments are getting weaker and weaker. I feel like Novak Djokovic is the karma of tennis to Fedal fans.

The desperation is almost palpable! On another site, Djokovic's accomplishments are being devalued in many different ways! With Masters, Federer had to win his titles BO5 instead of BO3; like it's Nole's problem that Fed and Rafa probably approved the change as President and VP of the ATP! "Mohrons!" I just can't with these people! :facepalm:
 

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
Funny how people want to only focus on years where fed was ‘prime’ or nadal was ‘prime’.. yet they don’t want to only look at when djoker was ‘prime’

so let’s apply the fedal logic...

given novak was only in his prime 2011-2021 let’s dismiss all slams roger and rafa won between 04-10 since they hadn’t yet faced prime djokovic. Djokovic of 06-10 was a shadow of djoker 11-21

btw, nadal was in the height of his powers in 2011, world #1 and had won 3 slams in 2010. Novak dominated rafa in 2011, in like 5-6 big finals, masters and slams (iw, miami, rome, mc, wimbledon, us open)... prime nadal was owned by prime djoker that year

federer is trickier as his best results came when djoker was a baby, 04-07 but baby djoker beat him in a masters final in 07... imagine what prime djoker would’ve done

so these debates go both ways... we can play this game to our advantage..

‘prime’ is also not that easy to define. So roger 04-07? Djoker 11, 15- 16,20-21? Rafa 08, 10-11,13? What’s prime? Djoker and rafa had injuries which took them out for a couple of years.. like roger sneaked in two ao’s in 17,18 when novak went away for a couple of years. Prime novak wasn’t around 04-06 when roger amassed 8 slams..

The slam count would’ve probably been the same as it is today had all had same age and peaked at same time... they would’ve taken slams away from each other.. and maybe slam count would’ve just been a slightly different mix.. but still somewhere around 19-20-20
 
Last edited:

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
Most dominant in decade:

roger 03-13= 17 slams
Novak 11-21 = 18 slams
rafa 08-18 = 14 slams
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

Ricardo

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reactions
646
Points
113
federer is trickier as his best results came when djoker was a baby, 04-07 but baby djoker beat him in a masters final in 07... imagine what prime djoker would’ve done
the same can be said when grandpa Fed beat prime Djoker in 2019 Masters, imagine what prime Fed would've done. Fact is, grandpa Fed was the better of the two until he was in his mid 30s. Djoker really amassed his wins against Fed who was 10 years past his prime. And that 2019 Wimbledon final is just wicked, Fed was better in every major significant stats, except one.....he lost the match.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Front242

Ricardo

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reactions
646
Points
113
This is silly and just fallacious. No one is looking at just the "past 7 years." You're doing a Ricardo, weakening any legitimate point you make with ad hominems.
this is how i know i really got into someone's skin. here i will remind everyone, El Dude's logic and knowledge is shown, when he said Pioline was the biggest underachiever......he doesn't know the sport too well, except he is always very loud....as if his analysis is valid.
 

Ricardo

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reactions
646
Points
113
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.
For someone who advocated against the idea of 'GOAT' to now, bandwagon Dude is showing his true colours. Either one believes the idea of GOAT, or not.
 

shawnbm

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
3,566
Reactions
1,246
Points
113
Most dominant in decade:

roger 03-13= 17 slams
Novak 11-21 = 18 slams
rafa 08-18 = 14 slams
that is the way I was looking at it too. Pretty doggone even insofar as they were all three incredibly dominant and won the career slam during those time periods and were multiple year number ones. Would I have liked to see the Federer of 2005-2006 play the Novak of 2011 or 2015? The Rafa of 2010 or 2013? Sure! But that can't happen and never will. Maybe the 2021 Nole is even better than he was before (at least in the majors)? Who knows? All I DO know is that we carp on far too much about these statistical details and really should enjoy how each of them bring unique and overpowering things to a tennis court against all comers. I used to have favorites in the Seventies and Eighties and now I just marvel at the high quality Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Agassi and Sampras could play at. It is just wonderful to go back and watch them with the older racquests and see what they could do. Don't even get me started on 41 year old Laver playing 19 year old Borg on clay in Boca Raton in 1977! In every era there were astounding players. I wish I saw Hoad and Pancho in their primes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
the same can be said when grandpa Fed beat prime Djoker in 2019 Masters, imagine what prime Fed would've done. Fact is, grandpa Fed was the better of the two until he was in his mid 30s. Djoker really amassed his wins against Fed who was 10 years past his prime. And that 2019 Wimbledon final is just wicked, Fed was better in every major significant stats, except one.....he lost the match.
And fed amassed 8 slams by beating up on pretenders... between 04-06...

Federer was a great player but djoker is superior to fed’s main rivals between 04-06

clay courter rafa took fed to 5 sets in wimbledon 07 and best him in 08 finals. Djoker is superior to rafa on grass, crushed prime rafa in 11 wimbledon finals. Djoker could’ve easily taken slams from roger in 04-07.. heck clay courter nadal, before his prime, was giving fed fits on grass.. in 07.

again goes both ways, it’s likely prime djokovic would’ve taken slams away from roger 04-06 and prime roger taken slams away from djoker 15-21... we are back to square 1... zero sum game
 

tented

Administrator
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
21,664
Reactions
10,487
Points
113
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Yes, I agree, which is why I say "herd." I think this extends beyond just the Big Three and includes the GOTEs of past eras: Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, etc.

Sure, we can use the history of a sport as a guideline for eliminating GOAT, while keeping GOTE. At the time, Laver was considered the greatest, then Borg was the greatest, then Sampras, then Federer, Nadal, and now Djokovic. It’s fluidic. And temporary. In 10 years, there will be another guy who surpasses these records, and will be considered the GOAT. So at that point will Novak be the GOAT or the GOTE? I say the latter.

And for the record, in case there are any questions concerning my motivation during the present time, GOTE is something I’ve embraced for years — however long ago it was that Nehmeth (a Djokovic fan no less) came up with it.
 
Last edited:

the AntiPusher

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,008
Reactions
7,120
Points
113
Funny how people want to only focus on years where fed was ‘prime’ or nadal was ‘prime’.. yet they don’t want to only look at when djoker was ‘prime’

so let’s apply the fedal logic...

given novak was only in his prime 2011-2021 let’s dismiss all slams roger and rafa won between 04-10 since they hadn’t yet faced prime djokovic. Djokovic of 06-10 was a shadow of djoker 11-21

btw, nadal was in the height of his powers in 2011, world #1 and had won 3 slams in 2010. Novak dominated rafa in 2011, in like 5-6 big finals, masters and slams (iw, miami, rome, mc, wimbledon, us open)... prime nadal was owned by prime djoker that year

federer is trickier as his best results came when djoker was a baby, 04-07 but baby djoker beat him in a masters final in 07... imagine what prime djoker would’ve done

so these debates go both ways... we can play this game to our advantage..

‘prime’ is also not that easy to define. So roger 04-07? Djoker 11, 15- 16,20-21? Rafa 08, 10-11,13? What’s prime? Djoker and rafa had injuries which took them out for a couple of years.. like roger sneaked in two ao’s in 17,18 when novak went away for a couple of years. Prime novak wasn’t around 04-06 when roger amassed 8 slams..

The slam count would’ve probably been the same as it is today had all had same age and peaked at same time... they would’ve taken slams away from each other.. and maybe slam count would’ve just been a slightly different mix.. but still somewhere around 19-20-20
Federer in his prime is the only way to legitimately evaluate the Big 3. Otherwise each player era should be looked at individually.

"Djokovic was a baby" that's rubbish..Novak won a slam and made it to numerous others . What's was Nadal who is only 11 months older, a Man Child?

I don't agree with that the Fedal fans are scared or something like that..NoOne has said Novak's accomplishments are not valid. But to declare him the GOAT when both Roger and Rafa are still playing great tennis and winning
Sure, we can use the history of a sport as a guideline for eliminating GOAT, while keeping GOTE. At the time, Laver was considered the greatest, then Borg was the greatest, then Sampras, then Federer, Nadal, and now Djokovic. It’s fluidic. And temporary. In 10 years, there will be another guy who surpasses these records, and will be considered the GOAT. So at that point will Novak be the GOAT or the GOTE? I say the latter.

And for the record, in case any questions my motivation during the present time, GOTE is something I’ve embraced for years — however long along it was that Nehmeth (a Djokovic fan no less) came up with it.
Nah,, these records are not going to be EVER broken... This is IT. We will go back to the post Sampras pre Fed days when Roddick, Thomas Johansson and gaudio was winning grandslams.. Boring
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fiero425