2025 Wimbledon SF: Novak Djokovic vs. Jannik Sinner

[El Dude]

no I think he's only 3 behind at 100

Yeah, 3 behind Roger and 9 behind Connors, who he almost certainly won't catch.

 

[Federberg]

Yeah, 3 behind Roger and 9 behind Connors, who he almost certainly won't catch.

some of those tournaments Connors won, I think the previous champion was an automatic finalist (a la chess world champion). I might be wrong but think that was the case for many tournaments at the start of the open era...

 

[Moxie]

no I think he's only 3 behind at 100

Oh, right...it's Conners who has 109, then? Anyway, I don't think he'll play 250s just to do that.

 

[El Dude]

lol! Who died and came up with that rule? So by that logic is Agassi ahead of Sampras?

It isn't a rule, but there are just different ways to assess greatness. GOAT points is one way, that accounts for a variety of factors. Slam count is another, which I find to be overly simplistic. We've talked about this a ton before here. But I think it is pretty obvious that you can't just reduce a player's greatness to how many Slams they won. That is an important factor, and maybe the most important factor, but not the only factor, imo.

Probably the easiest way to illustrate this is to compare three players from the early Open Era: Ilie Nastase and Sam Smith won 2 Slams each, while Jan Kodes won 3 Slams. But compare the rest of their accomplishments:

NASTASE: 4 Tour Finals, 8 Masters equivalents, 65 titles overall, year-end #1 in 1973 (and would have been in 1972 if there were computerized rankings). 88 weeks at #1, 369 weeks in the top 10.
SMITH: 1 Tour Finals, 1 WCT Finals, 3 Masters equivalents, 49 titles overall, highest rank #2, 274 weeks in the top 10.
KODES: 9 titles, no other big titles. Highest rank #5, 133 weeks in top 10.

Nastase and Smith were MUCH better players.

More recently you could compare Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka, both of whom won 3 Slams but the rest of Andy's career was MUCH better than Stan's.

 

[Federberg]

It isn't a rule, but there are just different ways to assess greatness. GOAT points is one way, that accounts for a variety of factors. Slam count is another, which I find to be overly simplistic. We've talked about this a ton before here. But I think it is pretty obvious that you can't just reduce a player's greatness to how many Slams they won. That is an important factor, and maybe the most important factor, but not the only factor, imo.

Probably the easiest way to illustrate this is to compare three players from the early Open Era: Ilie Nastase and Sam Smith won 2 Slams each, while Jan Kodes won 3 Slams. But compare the rest of their accomplishments:

NASTASE: 4 Tour Finals, 8 Masters equivalents, 65 titles overall, year-end #1 in 1973 (and would have been in 1972 if there were computerized rankings). 88 weeks at #1, 369 weeks in the top 10.
SMITH: 1 Tour Finals, 1 WCT Finals, 3 Masters equivalents, 49 titles overall, highest rank #2, 274 weeks in the top 10.
KODES: 9 titles, no other big titles. Highest rank #5, 133 weeks in top 10.

Nastase and Smith were MUCH better players.

More recently you could compare Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka, both of whom won 3 Slams but the rest of Andy's career was MUCH better than Stan's.

lol! You and the stuff you come up with.

The discussion was strictly about slams. In any case both Sinner and Alcaraz are close wrt titles. Roughly 20. Both No 1s. I'll pick the guy with potentially 6, vs the guy with potentially 4. Every week day and on Sunday. The rest is just lipstick on a pig

 

[El Dude]

lol! You and the stuff you come up with.

The discussion was strictly about slams. In any case both Sinner and Alcaraz are close wrt titles. Roughly 20. Both No 1s. I'll pick the guy with potentially 6, vs the guy with potentially 4. Every week day and on Sunday. The rest is just lipstick on a pig

Actually, it wasn't. @PhiEaglesfan712 was talking about GOAT points - a system used by UltimateTennisStatistics.com. You challenged that with Slam count...meaning, you made it about Slams, replying to someone who was talking about something else.

Anyhow, I think I made my case with Nastase/Smith/Kodes and Murray/Wawrinka. Ignore that if you want, but I'd say those two examples are pretty hard to refute as examples of the problem of "Slam absolutism." I mean, compare McEnroe and Wilander - both 7 Slams, but Mac was significantly better, with far more big titles and time at #1. Or Connors/Lendl/Agassi. When looking at the deeper record, it is clear that Lendl > Connors > Agassi. Not to mention tons of examples of players with 0-2 Slams not simply being aligned with their Slam title, in terms of how good they were. Or do you think Gaston Gaudio was better than Marcelo Rios? Mark Edmondson better than Brian Gottfried? Thomas Johansson better than Alexander Zverev? Etc, etc.

 

[Fiero425]

Oh, right...it's Conners who has 109, then? Anyway, I don't think he'll play 250s just to do that.

Agreed! Not that he should care anyway! Allow scraggly records to be held by a few others! Why not? Connors can have it! Roger can have a few longevity records as well! I think Novak's still representing well enuf, but if he can't hang physically, he should probably retire! Like Fedal, it'll be up to him regardless of the haters around here; his & mine's!

 

[El Dude]

Agreed! Not that he should care anyway! Allow scraggly records to be held by a few others! Why not? Connors can have it! Roger can have a few longevity records as well! I think Novak's still representing well enuf, but if he can't hang physically, he should probably retire! Like Fedal, it'll be up to him regardless of the haters around here; his & mine's!

Connors 109 is one of those older records that doesn't hold a huge amount of weight. I mean, it is impressive - but not as impressive as the 103, 100, and 92 of the Big three, because not only were a larger of their titles "big" ones, but even the lower level tournaments were more equalized than in Connors' era.

That said, I do agree with the idea that Novak might want to drive the final nail in the coffin of the GOAT debate and pass Roger's 103. I mean, he'd be leading in every significant category. Roger will always have 237 consecutive weeks at #1 and Rafa will have 14 titles at one Slam, but both of those are orthogonal to the other stats (i.e. total weeks at #1 and total Slam count).

But if Novak reaches 104 titles, he would then have over the other two: More Slams, big titles, titles, weeks at #1.

 

[Fiero425]

Connors 109 is one of those older records that doesn't hold a huge amount of weight. I mean, it is impressive - but not as impressive as the 103, 100, and 92 of the Big three, because not only were a larger of their titles "Big" ones, but even the lower level tournaments were more equalized than in Connors' era.

That said, I do agree with the idea that Novak might want to drive the final nail in the coffin of the GOAT debate and pass Roger's 103. I mean, he'd be leading in every significant category. Roger will always have 237 consecutive weeks at #1 and Rafa will have 14 titles at one Slam, but both of those are orthogonal to the other stats (i.e. total weeks at #1 and total Slam count).

But if Novak reaches 104 titles, he would then have over the other two: More Slams, Big Titles, titles, weeks at #1.

Yep! My thinking exactly! Great post! Thanks!

 

[Andy22]

Federer 3 extra titles he has over Djokovic are just 250 tournaments, so where's no reason why Djokovic needs to past Federer for titles. Jim Conners has the real record but this has never been main part of Goat talks so it also doesn't matter. Where's no reason why Djokovic shouldn't retire at AO 26 after winning the title what a story that would be something a Goat would do.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Federer 3 extra titles he has over Djokovic are just 250 tournaments, so where's no reason why Djokovic needs to past Federer for titles. Jim Conners has the real record but this has never been main part of Goat talks so it also doesn't matter. Where's no reason why Djokovic shouldn't retire at AO 26 after winning the title what a story that would be something a Goat would do.

To strengthen his GOAT case. I know Djokovic doesn't need it, but he probably knows some of the records are in reach if he plays in 2026: Australian Open match wins (3 behind Federer), Wimbledon match wins (3 behind Federer), and Wimbledon titles (one behind Federer). Maybe not the Wimbledon titles, but Novak would hold the record for both Australian and Wimbledon match wins if he just makes the QF at both. Right now, Novak doesn't hold any of the match win records at the slams. By taking away the 2 records Federer holds at the slams, that would definitely be a huge swing towards Novak (and away from Federer) in the GOAT argument.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I think the above is true - as far as the GOAT conversation. But Novak isn't driven by GOAT points - I think he'd like the bragging rights over Roger, at least, of 104 titles. But he won't lose sleep over it. But I'm guessing his top priority is #25, and a distant second priority is #104.

As far as the GOAT conversation, I think you can answer it by about 90% by looking at just three factors: Slams, weeks at #1, and big titles - in that order. More statistically-minded folks might also include Elo, but I'm mixed on that. Everything else is within the ~10%.

In those three factors, Novak is #1, #1, and...you guessed it...#1. Rafa is #2, #6 or 7 (depending upon whether you include 1968-73 extrapolated weeks ala UTS), and #2. # Roger is #3, #2, and #3. So it is pretty clear who stands above the other two.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

In those three factors, Novak is #1, #1, and...you guessed it...#1. Rafa is #2, #6 or 7 (depending upon whether you include 1968-73 extrapolated weeks ala UTS), and #2. # Roger is #3, #2, and #3. So it is pretty clear who stands above the other two.

I think it's very close between Roger and Novak. Right now, I have Roger at #1 and Novak at #2. Roger was still competing for slams at 38. I mean, he almost beat an in-prime Novak at 2019 Wimbledon. However, if Novak can stay strong for another year, that might be enough for me to put Novak ahead. Roger suffered the injury at the AO, and I know the pandemic messed up things, but he came back at 39 clearly not the same player. If Novak can play at a high level next year at 39, and with maybe the Australian Open and Wimbledon match wins record (taken away from Federer), that might be enough to close the argument.

 

[El Dude]

I think it's very close between Roger and Novak. Right now, I have Roger at #1 and Novak at #2. Roger was still competing for slams at 38. I mean, he almost beat an in-prime Novak at 2019 Wimbledon. However, if Novak can stay strong for another year, that might be enough for me to put Novak ahead. Roger suffered the injury at the AO, and I know the pandemic messed up things, but he came back at 39 clearly not the same player. If Novak can play at a high level next year at 39, and with maybe the Australian Open and Wimbledon match wins record (taken away from Federer), that might be enough to close the argument.

I respect that, but for me Novak has separated himself from Roger and Rafa enough to claim sole ownership of #1. The gap isn't huge, but it is enough for me to feel confident. I mean, in the end, we're left with accomplishments - and by any measure, Novak wins out. This isn't to say that at their respective peak levels he was better - I think they were all basically equally brilliant tennis players - but that in terms of career accomplishments, Novak gets the edge.

 

[Moxie]

Hear it from the man himself. Elegant press conference. He says he doesn't intend for it to be his last Wimbledon:

 

[Moxie]

Rather less interesting, but in the interest of equal time:

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Hear it from the man himself. Elegant press conference. He says he doesn't intend for it to be his last Wimbledon:

Yeah, I think he is going to make adjustments to his schedule next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he skipped the French Open going forward to give him a better chance to be healthy at Wimbledon, like Federer did later in his career (starting in 2016).

 

[rafanoy1992]

Jannik Sinner is such a damn good player. I know Carlos is the hot young thing, but this guy is every bit as good, just in a different way. We are really lucky to have these two youngsters - true all-time greats in their early primes. Remember how worrisome it was from about 2012-21 when it seemed like we'd never see another all-time great? Well, we've got two ones, age 22 and (almost) 24.

Most fans and people will gravitate towards Alcaraz more than Sinner for different factors/reasons. And I think Sinner will be fine with that sentiment.

For me, as a Sinner fan, I am totally okay with Alcaraz getting all the attention/hype/love from different fans and people. He is a generational talent and he has the charisma to attract fans.

What I get a little bit annoyed is when they use the age thing for both players. Yes, Alcaraz is younger than Sinner, but it is not like Sinner is 27+ years old. He is only turning 24 years old in a couple of weeks, so it is not like Alcaraz will have an exponential advantage when he gets older and wiser.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Most fans and people will gravitate towards Alcaraz more than Sinner for different factors/reasons. And I think Sinner will be fine with that sentiment.

For me, as a Sinner fan, I am totally okay with Alcaraz getting all the attention/hype/love from different fans and people. He is a generational talent and he has the charisma to attract fans.

What I get a little bit annoyed is when they use the age thing for both players. Yes, Alcaraz is younger than Sinner, but it is not like Sinner is 27+ years old. He is only turning 24 years old in a couple of weeks, so it is not like Alcaraz will have an exponential advantage when he gets older and wiser.

Welcome back Rafanoy good to see you posting at TF again, at least I have a kindred spirit again like you as a Sinner fan!

 

[Moxie]

Most fans and people will gravitate towards Alcaraz more than Sinner for different factors/reasons. And I think Sinner will be fine with that sentiment.

For me, as a Sinner fan, I am totally okay with Alcaraz getting all the attention/hype/love from different fans and people. He is a generational talent and he has the charisma to attract fans.

What I get a little bit annoyed is when they use the age thing for both players. Yes, Alcaraz is younger than Sinner, but it is not like Sinner is 27+ years old. He is only turning 24 years old in a couple of weeks, so it is not like Alcaraz will have an exponential advantage when he gets older and wiser.

Yes, as Margaret says, good to see you around, Rafaynoy! I wanted to draw your attention to this post (#12) from Jelenafan:

2025 Wimbledon Men's Final: Sinner v. Alcaraz

How do you see this match going?

tennisfrontier.com

pointing out that one of the great things about their rivalry is that there is essentially no age difference worth mentioning.