Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[GameSetAndMath]

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.

I agree with the GOTE concept. But, only problem is that it does not give a way for Fedal fans to dismiss Novak (unless they want to argue that Novak is from a different era, which some are trying to do without explicitly stating).

 

[the AntiPusher]

I agree with the GOTE concept. But, only problem is that it does not give a way for Fedal fans to dismiss Novak (unless they want to argue that Novak is from a different era, which some are trying to do without explicitly stating).

GSM No.. I can only speak for myself.. Novak was in the same era with Federer and Nadal. The numbers show that there isnt a clear choice as the GOAT. What is so difficult to comprehend and accept about that concept?

 

[Moxie]

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.

By how much? Novak is now 7-5 in Majors, from the period you cite. But that is not vastly superior.

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.

This is an argument that I pooh-pooh by others, on this thread, and previously. How in the world can you say that adding Majors is a bad thing? It's not just MS1000s on clay. They are actual Majors won. There is no down-side. And I've also discussed how Roger and Novak can combine to block him at off-clay events, and even including the age spread. No one ever seems to respond to this point.

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.

Gretzky, Jordan, whatever...you get the point that the notion of a "GOAT" in sports is fairly new, and that's why it's hard to make one, across eras.

You can talk of Novak's performance against Rafa in 2011-14, but you don't address Novak's performance v. Rafa prior to 2011. Rafa was in his absolute peak in 2008. And 2010 was a banner year. I don't pretend that he'd fallen off in 2011, but you can't really say that he was still prime by 2014, having had chronic knee tendonitis since 2009. There are Federer fans (and I'm not saying you're one of them,) who insist that Roger's "prime" was over in 2007. I think that's a load of bollocks. We can debate "peak" and "prime" and maybe talk about post-prime years when they make adjustments and still manage to win Majors over a field that refuses to play hard enough. But how long are we willing to stretch a "prime," actually? Nadal won his first Major in 2005. Djokovic his first in 2008. 2014 was 9 years for Nadal, since his first Major. For Djokovic, it was only 3 years since he hit his stride. Do you see my point?

 

[Moxie]

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.

You have ignored that many of us, including Djokovic fans, (as @nehmeth was the one quoted on the GOTE concept,) have long said that ONE GOAT is hard to come by. It's also a bit rich for you to show back up, after a long time of not posting on the forums, to gloat, and call the rest of us transparent and funny. I'd say you don't have the high-hand for laughing behind it, when you stay away so long, then show up to crow. You don't even know what the conversations have been like, so don't tell us off. Please.

 

[roberto]

You have ignored that many of us, including Djokovic fans, (as @nehmeth was the one quoted on the GOTE concept,) have long said that ONE GOAT is hard to come by. It's also a bit rich for you to show back up, after a long time of not posting on the forums, to gloat, and call the rest of us transparent and funny. I'd say you don't have the high-hand for laughing behind it, when you stay away so long, then show up to crow. You don't even know what the conversations have been like, so don't tell us off. Please.

Moxie--you'll go down with the ship, God love ya . But there ARE certain criteria that most go by: 1. # of slams (TBD--but looking like Djokovic will catch or surpass the others this year), 2.year-end #1s--TBD but looking favorable for Djokovic; 3. weeks at #1--Djokovic; #4--Masters titles--TBD between Nadal and Djokovic. You can put in local color about great rivalries---but those are the stats....

 

[El Dude]

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

But why separate their careers at all? You cherry-pick, and slice and dice, to point out where Rafa excels, but any such date ranges is arbitrary.

 

[El Dude]

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.

Dude, I'm a Federer fan, but a tennis fan first, and I started the thread - which says that it is getting to the point where Novak might have the edge, and I think inevitably will. So at least say, "some Fedal fans."

 

[El Dude]

Most dominant in decade:

roger 03-13= 17 slams
Novak 11-21 = 18 slams
rafa 08-18 = 14 slams

Those aren't decades but 11 year spans.

 

[El Dude]

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.

Thanks for exemplifying my point: anything substantive you might have to say is obscured in a cloud of vitriol.

(And I never said Pioline was "the biggest underachiever" - I included his name in a list of people who some consider underachievers)

 

[El Dude]

By how much? Novak is now 7-5 in Majors, from the period you cite. But that is not vastly superior.

Yes, which is why I said "superior", not "vastly" so. And of course majors, while the main assessment of greatness, aren't the only assessment of greatness. Novak has also piled up all those weeks at #1, more than any in the ATP era - and all since 2011.

This is an argument that I pooh-pooh by others, on this thread, and previously. How in the world can you say that adding Majors is a bad thing? It's not just MS1000s on clay. They are actual Majors won. There is no down-side. And I've also discussed how Roger and Novak can combine to block him at off-clay events, and even including the age spread. No one ever seems to respond to this point.

It isn't a bad thing. I'm saying two things: 1), Rafa is already so much better on clay that yet another RG doesn't increase his clay greatness, and 2) At the point they are in terms of total Slams, ending up with the lead is only bragging rights - there isn't a substantive difference between 19, 20, 21. If any of them want to hang their singular GOAT hat on total Slam count, they have significantly distance themselves from the others (at least +3), and/or have to be superior in other facets of their resume (especially weeks at #1). Right now Novak already has the most weeks at #1 and, I think, at least even chances with Rafa as ending up with the most GS titles.

Your point about Roger and Novak blocking him off-clay is also true for the other two on every surface, so I don't see how that is particularly meaningful. All of them have been great on every surface, , at least for large segments of their careers.

Gretzky, Jordan, whatever...you get the point that the notion of a "GOAT" in sports is fairly new, and that's why it's hard to make one, across eras.

Absolutely, which is why I don't think it is either/or, that is, either singular GOAT or GOTEs. It is both, and GOTE is ultimately a better--more nuanced--answer, but we can still approach the GOAT question as "answerable," even if with caveats.

You can talk of Novak's performance against Rafa in 2011-14, but you don't address Novak's performance v. Rafa prior to 2011. Rafa was in his absolute peak in 2008. And 2010 was a banner year. I don't pretend that he'd fallen off in 2011, but you can't really say that he was still prime by 2014, having had chronic knee tendonitis since 2009. There are Federer fans (and I'm not saying you're one of them,) who insist that Roger's "prime" was over in 2007. I think that's a load of bollocks. We can debate "peak" and "prime" and maybe talk about post-prime years when they make adjustments and still manage to win Majors over a field that refuses to play hard enough. But how long are we willing to stretch a "prime," actually? Nadal won his first Major in 2005. Djokovic his first in 2008. 2014 was 9 years for Nadal, since his first Major. For Djokovic, it was only 3 years since he hit his stride. Do you see my point?

Sure, but I'm not ignoring Novak's early career. I'm just saying that with Novak and Rafa, we have more overlap of them both playing at prime level, and Novak holds the edge. A couple years ago, I argued that Rafa was no lesser a player in 2011 than he was in 2010, but he had to face a Novak that had stepped it up. As I said then, Rafa's record against everyone else (other than Novak) was almost exactly the same in both years, but he couldn't beat Novak v2.0.

Rafa in 2010: 71-10 (2-0 vs Novak; 69-10 vs everyone else)
Rafa in 2011: 69-15 (0-6 vs Novak; 69-9 vs everyone else)

Now Rafa did adjust, and other than his bad years (2015-16) they've been about equal since.

Anyhow, I don't have a skin in the game. If I did, I'd be finding clever ways to prop up Roger. The whole point of this thread was to give credit where it is due, and to say that if we have to answer the question of who is (or will be) the singular GOAT--with a gun to the head--I think the answer when all is said and done will probably be Novak, even while I think "GOTE" is more meaningful in terms of tennis history.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, which is why I said "superior", not "vastly" so. And of course majors, while the main assessment of greatness, aren't the only assessment of greatness. Novak has also piled up all those weeks at #1, more than any in the ATP era - and all since 2011.

Oh, you're walking back "superior" with "not vastly so." "Superior" is kind of a superlative. Either you mean it, or you don't. Look, I don't know who assigned the Majors as a measure of greatness, but they are. Yes, weeks at #1, etc, but not as much.

It isn't a bad thing. I'm saying two things: 1), Rafa is already so much better on clay that yet another RG doesn't increase his clay greatness, and 2) At the point they are in terms of total Slams, ending up with the lead is only bragging rights - there isn't a substantive difference between 19, 20, 21. If any of them want to hang their singular GOAT hat on total Slam count, they have significantly distance themselves from the others (at least +3), and/or have to be superior in other facets of their resume (especially weeks at #1). Right now Novak already has the most weeks at #1 and, I think, at least even chances with Rafa as ending up with the most GS titles.

I still fundamentally disagree with you that more Majors at RG means nothing to Nadal's greatness, and not just in Clay Goatness, if you will, but overall. And why is weeks at #1 the 2nd game changer, in this era? Because some decide? What about single-surface GOATness? What about losing weeks at #1 to injury? What about gaining weeks at #1 to pandemic rule changes? You happy with that? The basic problem is that there are many criteria. And we don't all weigh them the same.

Your point about Roger and Novak blocking him off-clay is also true for the other two on every surface, so I don't see how that is particularly meaningful. All of them have been great on every surface, , at least for large segments of their careers.

No, it is meaningful. Roger and Novak are much stronger on HC than they are on clay. Sure, Rafa is stronger on clay, but look at how much you make of that, even in the above, and you make his clay prowess a knock. Turn that around. 60% of the tennis calendar is played on HC. You have two all-time greats who are better on HC, and they are 6 years disparate in age. Surely they prevented Rafa from some titles on HC and YEC, and weeks at #1. If you're going to diminish Rafa's accomplishments on clay, and say his resume is not balanced, then you should acknowledge that he had 2 all-time greats on either end of his career that dominated on what is the majority of the calendar. And STILL his of-clay career is HOF.

Absolutely, which is why I don't think it is either/or, that is, either singular GOAT or GOTEs. It is both, and GOTE is ultimately a better--more nuanced--answer, but we can still approach the GOAT question as "answerable," even if with caveats.

I don't think there is a GOAT answer in any sport. If you need caveats, it's not an answer.

Sure, but I'm not ignoring Novak's early career. I'm just saying that with Novak and Rafa, we have more overlap of them both playing at prime level, and Novak holds the edge. A couple years ago, I argued that Rafa was no lesser a player in 2011 than he was in 2010, but he had to face a Novak that had stepped it up. As I said then, Rafa's record against everyone else (other than Novak) was almost exactly the same in both years, but he couldn't beat Novak v2.0.
Rafa in 2010: 71-10 (2-0 vs Novak; 69-10 vs everyone else)
Rafa in 2011: 69-15 (0-6 vs Novak; 69-9 vs everyone else)

Now Rafa did adjust, and other than his bad years (2015-16) they've been about equal since.

You make my point, eventually.

Anyhow, I don't have a skin in the game. If I did, I'd be finding clever ways to prop up Roger. The whole point of this thread was to give credit where it is due, and to say that if we have to answer the question of who is (or will be) the singular GOAT--with a gun to the head--I think the answer when all is said and done will probably be Novak, even while I think "GOTE" is more meaningful in terms of tennis history.

Yes, you do have skin in the game. You're a Roger fan, and you just said it. We all have skin in the game. Most of us agree here that there is a lot of nuance in even the GOTE here, and, let's face it, Novak is still at 19. We'll know better when all is said and done.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie--you'll go down with the ship, God love ya . But there ARE certain criteria that most go by: 1. # of slams (TBD--but looking like Djokovic will catch or surpass the others this year), 2.year-end #1s--TBD but looking favorable for Djokovic; 3. weeks at #1--Djokovic; #4--Masters titles--TBD between Nadal and Djokovic. You can put in local color about great rivalries---but those are the stats....

For sure, I will fight you all to the death, especially when you are wrong. But how come YOU get to decide what the criteria are?

 

[the AntiPusher]

But why separate their careers at all? You cherry-pick, and slice and dice, to point out where Rafa excels, but any such date ranges is arbitrary.

No..oh contraire...for the hundred time . The best way to evaluate is the Prime years of Roger .

 

[Front242]

Prime Roddick = better than Djokovic. Just saying! 5-4 *Cough*

 

[Denis]

Dude, I'm a Federer fan, but a tennis fan first, and I started the thread - which says that it is getting to the point where Novak might have the edge, and I think inevitably will. So at least say, "some Fedal fans."

Fair enough. Fixed it.

I personally thought the thread was a bit premature in terms of handing out the crown, but it provides for a lively discussion. I do think this FO may have been the decisive turning point when all is said and done.

 

[Denis]

You have ignored that many of us, including Djokovic fans, (as @nehmeth was the one quoted on the GOTE concept,) have long said that ONE GOAT is hard to come by. It's also a bit rich for you to show back up, after a long time of not posting on the forums, to gloat, and call the rest of us transparent and funny. I'd say you don't have the high-hand for laughing behind it, when you stay away so long, then show up to crow. You don't even know what the conversations have been like, so don't tell us off. Please.

Hey Mox, I read the boards still! Not as much as I used to I admit. And it is a pleasure to see you typing away that much. I just don't have that much to say these days really, but I found the narrative evolving around GOATness a bit rich.

 

[Denis]

@El Dude saw you posting that 'even' ultimate tennis statistics had Fed above Nadal. Made me think: anything wrong with their criteria? Seems like a good starting point at least. Perhaps too much points for 500 and 250 events (I don't think they should be counted at all)? Their ELO ranking has Rafa above Roger (Novak at the top). That is the way I see it currently (though it is very close): 1 Djokovic 2 Nadal 3 Fed . Mainly because of the h2h / ELO, as the other stats are very close or even out.

 

[Front242]

^ You play the field, not one player. Hence why h2h doesn't automatically put you ahead of someone given all their achievements outside of h2h that the other doesn't have.

 

[Denis]

^ You play the field, not one player. Hence why h2h doesn't automatically put you ahead of someone given all their achievements outside of h2h that the other doesn't have.

I didn't suggest as much. Read the post. You are the one btw bringing up Roddicks positive h2h with Novak lol. In any event, when it comes to the field, Roger has a lower ELO than Djokovic and Nadal.

 

[Front242]

I didn't suggest as much. Read the post. You are the one btw bringing up Roddicks positive h2h with Novak lol. In any event, when it comes to the field, Roger has a lower ELO than Djokovic and Nadal.

Haha, I just posted that to take the piss but it's a fact that Roddick had his number in his prime and Novak wasn't beating him till he was a hobbled old hasbeen. Novak was retiring all over the shop in matches till he jumped in that egg. The egg of life.