Fedalovic Wars

[El Dude]

Novak Djokovic is...
1st in Grand Slams with 24 (+2)
1st in Weeks at #1 with 398 (+88)

Those two together, alone, are probably enough, but...

1st in Year-end #1 with 7 (probably 8) (+1-2)
3rd in Titles with 97 (-12)
1st in Big Titles with 70 (+11)
1st in Masters with 40 (+4)
1st (tied) in Tour Finals with 6 (with Roger)
1st in Match Win% with 83.79% (+0.83%)
2nd in GS Win% with 88.26% (-1.55% behind Borg)
1st in Grand Slam finals with 36 (+5)
1st in Grand Slam semifinals with 47 (+1)
2nd in Grand Slam quarterfinals with 57 (-1)
1st in GOAT points with 1083 (+157)
1st in Peak Elo with 2629 (+7)

Only player to win Career Golden Masters (all nine)
Only player to win all four Slams at least three times each
Only player to win 10 big titles in a season

Etc. What does Roger have over that? Literally nothing in terms of counting stats. I mean, one more Wimbledon? More dominant four-year peak span? Peer generational dominance? Impressive, but more than outweighed by the rest (and Novak might grab that 8th Wimbledon). And Rafa? Most Slam titles at a single venue? Surface dominance? Better Slam final win %? Again, impressive but doesn't come close to balancing out Novak's overall superior record.

We can fiddle about with non-quantifiable things like "opportunity" or other "what if" scenarios, be in Rafa's injuries or Roger's pansy-ass-ness, but in the end the cold hard numbers are what remains: the records set in pyramidal stone.

In the above list, the only things Novak's not first in are overall titles, GS Win%, and GS quarterfinals. The last he'll almost certainly surpass - he just needs one. The GS Win% isn't really fair, because Borg retired from Slams at 25, so Novak is essentially 1st. As for titles, that remains to be seen, but of course we have to remind how many of those were all the low level ATP 250 equivalents Connors piled on.

Regardless, he could be 1st in every one of those before all is said and done, with the lone exception of GS Win%.

 

[nehmeth]

Thanks Dude. Thorough. As of now, he has two (2) career golden masters and if he plays and wins Monte Carlo next year it will be three.

 

[shawnbm]

Mighty impressive ^ is all one can say. Has there been luck? Yes, both good and bad. Same for Rafa and to a lesser extent Roger. But, along with Connors, Borg, Sampras and Nadal, he is one of those who'd you'd want playing to keep you out of the firing line when it gets down to it.

 

[Moxie]

Haha, Moxie - I swear you'll be the last (wo)man standing in the GOAT debate, or rather the last (wo)man claiming there never can be one.

Let's be honest: the only folks that still say that are a few Rafa diehards. I think most Roger fans have ceded to Novak's overwhelming record, and probably most Rafa fans at least admit that Novak has the edge. My guess is that 99% of non-tribalists would say Novak gets the GOAT crown. So really, there are only a few holdouts...you, Kieran, anyone else? I mean anyone? (I'm not counting certain folks).

This is not to say that other players, whether Rafa or Roger or the always GOAT-esque Rod Laver, don't have elements of GOATness (that is, ways in which they shone as bright or brighter than anyone). In truth, Rafa's clay GOATdom (and surface GOATdom) may never be surpassed, and I'm not sure we'll ever see a player as beautiful as Roger or who dominated his peers like he did. And we'll never truly be able to compare Laver to Novak, because of the era gap....there's still a reasonably argument, imo, that Laver is at least coeval with Novak.

But when all is said and done, the record is the only solid ground to make a determination, and Novak's record = GOATness, or at least Open Era GOATness (and it will likely become only more obvious). This isn't Rafa vs. Roger, which can be endless argued. Novak has surpassed both in nearly every meaningful way, at least in ways that can be quantified.

In other words, the only way out of admitting that Novak is the GOAT is by playing an endless semantic game with the term "GOAT." As Novak continues to pile up the accomplishments and further distance himself from everyone else, it is looking more and more like sophistry.

At least I'm consistent. I've always said there can't be one true and only GOAT. Which is partly what you're saying above, so no need to laugh at my position, just because you're changed yours. Even @shawnbm, in two posts above, feels the need to mention more than one player. I'm not the only person who doesn't believe there's A.SINGULAR.GOAT in men's tennis, or in other sports, either.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

All the big 3 have won more than 20 slams and with tons of accomplishments, and who cares about Djokovic having some “edge” in the stats because in reality the only thing separating them is not really “talent” and “greatness”, but rather how well their bodies held up. That’s really the main reason why Djokovic has an edge, when compared for example to Nadal.

But if you put all three of them on the street faced with a huge crowd, I bet your Djokovic who has “an edge in the stats” will still have far less attention than the other two. So yeah, impact on the game also counts for something. I bet way more people who bought tickets or watched them on TV remember the huge amazing fights and stunning shotmaking and points by Nadal or Federer then the more boring “efficient” style of Djokovic. Some of Nadal’s matches and winners had the crowd react like it’s a soccer match.

At the end of the day sure if someone has 25 slams on the other one has 8 then there is no debate, but when you are all in the 20+ slams range, impact on the game and the way you won count at least as much if not more than a few extra numbers that are a result of how the “body held up” and less injuries.

 

[don_fabio]

All the big 3 have won more than 20 slams and with tons of accomplishments, and who cares about Djokovic having some “edge” in the stats because in reality the only thing separating them is not really “talent” and “greatness”, but rather how well their bodies held up. That’s really the main reason why Djokovic has an edge, when compared for example to Nadal.

But if you put all three of them on the street faced with a huge crowd, I bet your Djokovic who has “an edge in the stats” will still have far less attention than the other two. So yeah, impact on the game also counts for something. I bet way more people who bought tickets or watched them on TV remember the huge amazing fights and stunning shotmaking and points by Nadal or Federer then the more boring “efficient” style of Djokovic. Some of Nadal’s matches and winners had the crowd react like it’s a soccer match.

At the end of the day sure if someone has 25 slams on the other one has 8 then there is no debate, but when you are all in the 20+ slams range, impact on the game and the way you won count at least as much if not more than a few extra numbers that are a result of how the “body held up” and less injuries.

What happened to those "greater than" and "less than" posts you used to make when Rafa had the highest count of the slams?

Let me refresh your memory for a moment, 24>22 and 24> 20.

 

[El Dude]

At least I'm consistent. I've always said there can't be one true and only GOAT. Which is partly what you're saying above, so no need to laugh at my position, just because you're changed yours. Even @shawnbm, in two posts above, feels the need to mention more than one player. I'm not the only person who doesn't believe there's A.SINGULAR.GOAT in men's tennis, or in other sports, either.

We should be willing to change (or evolve) our position as new data comes in, no? I mean, the situation isn't static and Novak keeps padding his record. But again, you're playing the semantic game of "GOAT" and seemingly adhering to a definition that preserves Rafa's status getting a sizable piece of the pie. Unfortunately this requires turning more and more of a blind-eye to the historical record.

 

[El Dude]

All the big 3 have won more than 20 slams and with tons of accomplishments, and who cares about Djokovic having some “edge” in the stats because in reality the only thing separating them is not really “talent” and “greatness”, but rather how well their bodies held up. That’s really the main reason why Djokovic has an edge, when compared for example to Nadal.

There is truth to this, of course - and I agree that in terms of talent and contextual greatness, they are close - even equals, more or less. But like I said to Moxie above, this requires a rather nebulous definition of what "GOAT" means. If we accept the commonly accepted definition, which is roughly the player with the best overall career accomplishments, it would be rather difficult to not insert Novak as the clear and obvious answer.

Plus it starts veering towards what we could call the "Lew Hoad Fallacy." Hoad was considered by some to be even as or even more talented - at his very best - than near contemporaries like Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, and Rod Laver. He is one of tennis history's great underachievers. But in the end, he didn't have nearly the career of those three. We can recognize his comparable peak talent without needing to equate it with similar greatness.

Now clearly Roger and Rafa aren't Hoad, but my point is that when we're looking at three players of roughly similar peak talent, it is perfectly reasonable to make the tie-breaker be actual, objective career accomplishments.

But if you put all three of them on the street faced with a huge crowd, I bet your Djokovic who has “an edge in the stats” will still have far less attention than the other two. So yeah, impact on the game also counts for something. I bet way more people who bought tickets or watched them on TV remember the huge amazing fights and stunning shotmaking and points by Nadal or Federer then the more boring “efficient” style of Djokovic. Some of Nadal’s matches and winners had the crowd react like it’s a soccer match.

Who cares? I mean, do you really care how popular they are and does that factor into greatness at all, except in a rather superficial, celebrity manner?

At the end of the day sure if someone has 25 slams on the other one has 8 then there is no debate, but when you are all in the 20+ slams range, impact on the game and the way you won count at least as much if not more than a few extra numbers that are a result of how the “body held up” and less injuries.

Let me ask you a question, and please answer this with "yes" or "no": Do you think that Novak has the best overall career record?

 

[El Dude]

I am positing a very simple, logical argument.

1. If Roger, Rafa, and Novak are roughly equal in terms of peak talent, all with incredible records and
2. We accept that, overall, Novak has the best career record, then...

Novak is, at the very least, first among near equals and the best answer to the "GOAT" question.

 

[the AntiPusher]

He's Coming and he is healthy .Just a few weeks more. Praise God..

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

instagram.com

 

[Kieran]

I am positing a very simple, logical argument.

1. If Roger, Rafa, and Novak are roughly equal in terms of peak talent, all with incredible records and
2. We accept that, overall, Novak has the best career record, then...

Novak is, at the very least, first among near equals and the best answer to the "GOAT" question.

I don’t know if that’s strictly logical. 2 of them had no rivals while they buffer up their resume, and one of them always had one or two rivals. That matters.

Now, you might reduce it all to records and that’s fine. That’s how it will be reduced anyway. But when we talk about ‘the historical record’ then we’re have to acknowledge that there’s no goat. The modern players can’t go back in time. And the ancient history players are automatically disqualified from the -at part of the word Goat…

 

[Nadalfan2013]

What happened to those "greater than" and "less than" posts you used to make when Rafa had the highest count of the slams?

Let me refresh your memory for a moment, 24>22 and 24> 20.

Yes you guys convinced me that it didn't matter because when it was 22-20-20 you guys didn't admit that Rafa was the GOAT. So therefore Djokovic cannot be GOAT either based on your own logic.

 

[El Dude]

I don’t know if that’s strictly logical. 2 of them had no rivals while they buffer up their resume, and one of them always had one or two rivals. That matters.

Now, you might reduce it all to records and that’s fine. That’s how it will be reduced anyway. But when we talk about ‘the historical record’ then we’re have to acknowledge that there’s no goat. The modern players can’t go back in time. And the ancient history players are automatically disqualified from the -at part of the word Goat…

See, to me this sounds a bit like what I was talking about - playing a semantic game.

I am not as much "reducing it all to records" as saying that: A) The other stuff is close enough, that we can look to the records as the defining factor in assigning a GOAT, and B) Any definition of GOAT other than "best overall career record" makes the term meaningless, so if we're going to use the term at all, it might as well be something that we can actually weigh and measure. At the very least, if we use the term we should be able to back it up with factual data (e.g. stats and career accomplishments).

Moxie thinks I'm being inconsistent, when I see it as me adapting to new data (Novak's clear statistical edge), and--perhaps more importantly--recognizing that we're talking about two separate things that shouldn't be reduced to each other, but which you and Moxie are doing because, from what I can tell, you both greatly dislike the idea of Novak having the GOAT label over Rafa. Those two things being:

1. Qualities of greatness - which the Big Three have aplenty, and we can add in Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, and just about any "all-time great,"
   as all having such qualities to various degrees and in different ways. Some of these guys--including each of the Big Three--have unique qualities that set them over all others in certain ways.
2. Greatest player (or rankings of players) by means that can be measured, which ultimately comes down to overall career accomplishments - that is, the actual results on court.

The former is an ongoing conversation that will never end and really doesn't have to be, and even shouldn't be, I would argue, a pissing contest as it is truly impossible to measure the brilliance of, say, Borg in the late 70s and early 80s to that of Rafa over the last two decades. We can recognize and admire the ways in which these players were and are great during very different eras. And in fact, it is a far more interesting and broader conversation than comparing stats.

The latter is actually a bit easier, or rather it has become easier as Novak has pulled ahead of the pack. After that, there are clear rankings and tiers, but we can argue how to weigh the records and compare them. The purpose of my list above is to basically show that it is become increasingly difficult to argue against Novak as GOAT, if GOAT = best career resume. And that's generally how it is viewed.

I suppose there is a third element that exists somewhere between the two, and looks at context - from peer groups and dominance to injuries to opportunity, etc. And I know you like to try to leverage that stuff for your boy from Mallorca. But my point is, no matter how you leverage it, what is writ in stone is writ in stone. We can listen to what players said about Lew Hoad and how great he was when he was on his game, or we can hear what our old friend cali had to say about David Nalbandian, but that ends up in a "category 1" discussion and shouldn't really factor into GOAT rankings.

Borg is another guy that factors in, due to him essentially retiring at his peak, which muddies any kind of stat-based ranking. In some ways he's far more problematic than a Hoad or Nalbandian. But in GOAT rankings, should he get credit for what he could have done? I don't think so.

In a way, more than anything I'm advocating for differentiating the conversation so that "qualities of greatness" aren't reduced to "GOATness," and further, sticking to a relatively narrow definition of GOAT as that which can be weighed and measured. Maybe I shouldn't use the term, and just make a list of players ranked by best career resumes.

Or to put it more simply, we can recognize, say, Hoad's "qualities of greatness" without muddying the term GOAT which if it is to have any meaning or be used at all, should at least be based on actual results and not nebulous and highly subjective ideas.

 

[Kieran]

See, to me this sounds a bit like what I was talking about - playing a semantic game.

I am not as much "reducing it all to records" as saying that: A) The other stuff is close enough, that we can look to the records as the defining factor in assigning a GOAT, and B) Any definition of GOAT other than "best overall career record" makes the term meaningless, so if we're going to use the term at all, it might as well be something that we can actually weigh and measure. At the very least, if we use the term we should be able to back it up with factual data (e.g. stats and career accomplishments).

Moxie thinks I'm being inconsistent, when I see it as me adapting to new data (Novak's clear statistical edge), and--perhaps more importantly--recognizing that we're talking about two separate things that shouldn't be reduced to each other, but which you and Moxie are doing because, from what I can tell, you both greatly dislike the idea of Novak having the GOAT label over Rafa. Those two things being:

1. Qualities of greatness - which the Big Three have aplenty, and we can add in Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, and just about any "all-time great,"
   as all having such qualities to various degrees and in different ways. Some of these guys--including each of the Big Three--have unique qualities that set them over all others in certain ways.
2. Greatest player (or rankings of players) by means that can be measured, which ultimately comes down to overall career accomplishments - that is, the actual results on court.

The former is an ongoing conversation that will never end and really doesn't have to be, and even shouldn't be, I would argue, a pissing contest as it is truly impossible to measure the brilliance of, say, Borg in the late 70s and early 80s to that of Rafa over the last two decades. We can recognize and admire the ways in which these players were and are great during very different eras. And in fact, it is a far more interesting and broader conversation than comparing stats.

The latter is actually a bit easier, or rather it has become easier as Novak has pulled ahead of the pack. After that, there are clear rankings and tiers, but we can argue how to weigh the records and compare them. The purpose of my list above is to basically show that it is become increasingly difficult to argue against Novak as GOAT, if GOAT = best career resume. And that's generally how it is viewed.

I suppose there is a third element that exists somewhere between the two, and looks at context - from peer groups and dominance to injuries to opportunity, etc. And I know you like to try to leverage that stuff for your boy from Mallorca. But my point is, no matter how you leverage it, what is writ in stone is writ in stone. We can listen to what players said about Lew Hoad and how great he was when he was on his game, or we can hear what our old friend cali had to say about David Nalbandian, but that ends up in a "category 1" discussion and shouldn't really factor into GOAT rankings.

Borg is another guy that factors in, due to him essentially retiring at his peak, which muddies any kind of stat-based ranking. In some ways he's far more problematic than a Hoad or Nalbandian. But in GOAT rankings, should he get credit for what he could have done? I don't think so.

In a way, more than anything I'm advocating for differentiating the conversation so that "qualities of greatness" aren't reduced to "GOATness," and further, sticking to a relatively narrow definition of GOAT as that which can be weighed and measured. Maybe I shouldn't use the term, and just make a list of players ranked by best career resumes.

Or to put it more simply, we can recognize, say, Hoad's "qualities of greatness" without muddying the term GOAT which if it is to have any meaning or be used at all, should at least be based on actual results and not nebulous and highly subjective ideas.

It’s not a question of leveraging it for my boy from Mallorca. It’s a question of looking at it in human terms rather than simple data. For instance, Novak has seven Wimbledon. Pete has seven Wimbledons. Both the same data. Would I say Novak is better or as good as Pete at Wimbledon? Well, reduced to data, they’re the same. Does that then end the discussion? Maybe it does, but we learn nothing about either player, or the circumstances of their 7’s.

Personally I would never compare Novak with Pete at Wimbledon, yet statistically he’s gotten his results.

The point of saying this isn’t to boost Rafa or Pete, or to denigrate Novak. It’s a given that Novak has pulled an exemplary shift, turned himself around in 2011 and became a great player. But even looking at Novaks stats, was he better from 2008-2017, or from 2018-2023?

The first period, it’s ten years and he won 12/39 grand slams. The second period is 6 years and he won 12/19 slams. So he was better the second period? Looked at it solely from a statistical point of view, he most have been. But was he?

I actually love records and stats, and I’ve gone on record, I was rooting for Roger in the 2009 FO final because I rarely root for the underdog. I don’t believe in it. I totally admire players like Pete, who stayed at his post and kept the wolves from the door, to players like Agassi who were meh when it came to committing to excellence. I wouldn’t have liked Kyrgios to have won Wimbledon in 2022 for the same reason. He’s not worthy of it, Soderling wasn’t worthy of it. And Soderling was game, whereas Nick wasn’t. But I still don’t like slams being won by players who aren’t great.

The point with Hoad is that his greatness is largely now anecdotal, it’s based on what others said about him. That’s a tough one and I know that even pro-slams don’t indicate Hoad. I don’t know who they indicate but in practical terms, Laver won two CYGS and that’s the ultimate in our sport. Except that stats themselves change shape. Players priorities change too. It makes it difficult to compare across eras for this reason. I get it that there’s an urge to compare, and I think that this is modern science in all sports, and it’s driven by a hungry human appetite, which really probably makes it all the more enjoyable…

 

[El Dude]

It’s not a question of leveraging it for my boy from Mallorca. It’s a question of looking at it in human terms rather than simple data. For instance, Novak has seven Wimbledon. Pete has seven Wimbledons. Both the same data. Would I say Novak is better or as good as Pete at Wimbledon? Well, reduced to data, they’re the same. Does that then end the discussion? Maybe it does, but we learn nothing about either player, or the circumstances of their 7’s.

Personally I would never compare Novak with Pete at Wimbledon, yet statistically he’s gotten his results.

To be clear, I'm not denigrating such conversations - I enjoy them. I'm just saying that when all is said and done, the "GOAT" is the player with the best career resume. Full stop. And it is hard to deny that at this point in time, that is Novak Djokovic - at least for the Open Era.

But maybe the problem is the term itself, and if I rank players I shouldn't use it and instead say "Best Tennis Career of All Time" (BTCOAT). Not quite as catchy, unfortunately.

The point of saying this isn’t to boost Rafa or Pete, or to denigrate Novak. It’s a given that Novak has pulled an exemplary shift, turned himself around in 2011 and became a great player. But even looking at Novaks stats, was he better from 2008-2017, or from 2018-2023?

The first period, it’s ten years and he won 12/39 grand slams. The second period is 6 years and he won 12/19 slams. So he was better the second period? Looked at it solely from a statistical point of view, he most have been. But was he?

Well, I think the problem is the framing. Novak, like most players, has had a career in various phases, what I have sometimes called Development Phase (2004-10), Peak Phase (2011-16), Late Prime or Plateau Phase (2018-23). What makes his career unusual is that it looked like he was entering his peak in 2007-08 and wasn't going to get much better, but then had a second jump in 2011 to mega-star status. Like Roger and Rafa, he's also maintaining a high "late prime" phase, something that was mostly lacking from men's tennis during the Open Era, or at least going back to the early 70s when Laver and Rosewall were still hanging around at a high level.

But Novak was definitely at his best in 2011-16, with 2015 probably being the best year in tennis history, or at least right up there with Roger's 2006, Mac's 1984, and Laver's 1969. If I had to rank them it would be Novak, Laver, Roger, Mac as the four greatest seasons of the Open Era, in that order. But as you say, the were rather different eras, so it is hard to line them up and say one is clearly greater than the other. Maybe worth a post, though, as they're fun to look at.

I actually love records and stats, and I’ve gone on record, I was rooting for Roger in the 2009 FO final because I rarely root for the underdog. I don’t believe in it. I totally admire players like Pete, who stayed at his post and kept the wolves from the door, to players like Agassi who were meh when it came to committing to excellence. I wouldn’t have liked Kyrgios to have won Wimbledon in 2022 for the same reason. He’s not worthy of it, Soderling wasn’t worthy of it. And Soderling was game, whereas Nick wasn’t. But I still don’t like slams being won by players who aren’t great.

I hear your point. Tennis has a lot of one-Slam wonders, and just as many Slamless players who could have won Slams but didn't. It is easy to come up with a list of a dozen Slamless players who were as good or better than a dozen single-Slammers. I do tend to like the underdog, if only for the novelty of it (and because I'm an anti-imperialist ), but I also hear what you are saying...which, as I interpret it, is that you respect the excellence of the true greats that maintain a high level, as well as the determination and competitiveness of guys like Soderling, vs. the laziness and unfulfilled talent of a Kyrgios or Nalbandian.

The point with Hoad is that his greatness is largely now anecdotal, it’s based on what others said about him. That’s a tough one and I know that even pro-slams don’t indicate Hoad. I don’t know who they indicate but in practical terms, Laver won two CYGS and that’s the ultimate in our sport. Except that stats themselves change shape. Players priorities change too. It makes it difficult to compare across eras for this reason. I get it that there’s an urge to compare, and I think that this is modern science in all sports, and it’s driven by a hungry human appetite, which really probably makes it all the more enjoyable…

As a side note, I consider pro Slams mostly as placeholders. They were funny tournaments in that they were kind of like three-round Tour Finals - so aren't even commensurate with those, but with similar "talent density." In any given year, most of the guys playing Pro Slams probably would have won the Amateur Slams of the same year.

So in that sense, when I look at Laver from about 1961 into the early 70s, I see a guy who was just as dominant as any player after him. Once he got his footing on the pro tour, he was just as dominant on tour as the best years of the Big Three, just in a very different context. Similarly with Gonzales in the late 50s and perhaps Tilden for parts of his career.

As for Hoad, that kind of goes along with what I'm saying. He's interesting to talk about because of the anecdotes, but in discussing GOATness, he doesn't figure in much. He's probably more in the mix with guys like Courier as a "lesser great" who didn't quite reach the level of true all-time great, if for different reasons.

 

[Kieran]

Well, I think the problem is the framing. Novak, like most players, has had a career in various phases, what I have sometimes called Development Phase (2004-10), Peak Phase (2011-16), Late Prime or Plateau Phase (2018-23). What makes his career unusual is that it looked like he was entering his peak in 2007-08 and wasn't going to get much better, but then had a second jump in 2011 to mega-star status. Like Roger and Rafa, he's also maintaining a high "late prime" phase, something that was mostly lacking from men's tennis during the Open Era, or at least going back to the early 70s when Laver and Rosewall were still hanging around at a high level.

But Novak was definitely at his best in 2011-16, with 2015 probably being the best year in tennis history, or at least right up there with Roger's 2006, Mac's 1984, and Laver's 1969. If I had to rank them it would be Novak, Laver, Roger, Mac as the four greatest seasons of the Open Era, in that order. But as you say, the were rather different eras, so it is hard to line them up and say one is clearly greater than the other. Maybe worth a post, though, as they're fun to look at.

Imagine if Djoker was two players, who both ended their careers with the 12 slams he won in both parts of his career. Novak Djokovic, 2008-2017, and Djovak Nokovic from 2018-2023.

Which would you say was better? This is the thing, we know he was better when he was younger, so how are his stats better now?

 

[Fiero425]

I don’t know if that’s strictly logical. 2 of them had no rivals while they buffer up their resume, and one of them always had one or two rivals. That matters.

Now, you might reduce it all to records and that’s fine. That’s how it will be reduced anyway. But when we talk about ‘the historical record’ then we’re have to acknowledge that there’s no goat. The modern players can’t go back in time. And the ancient history players are automatically disqualified from the -at part of the word Goat…

I'm still one to say Roger's legacy was hurt by hanging on for those last several years! It was more a money grab IMO as he was abused by Novak; even on faster courts! I thought Fed's legend would have endured more if he had left after his Wimbledon win in 2012! Going for over 5 years w/o a major win wasn't worth it to add those last 3! He's still in 3rd place! The "WHAT IF?" would have been a conversation starter if he had ended on a high note! He faded and faded fast after the Wimbledon loss to Novak in 2019! It's the reason both Borg & Sampras were given more credit for their accomplishments! Borg did lead the Open Era w/ 11 Majors for quite a few years when Pete caught up and passed him! We love Pete so much, he was anointed "The GOAT" w/o a FO final on his resume! Lucky it became moot as 3 players zipped past him in record time! Laver had decades to relish his position! Pete lost it to Roger in leas than 9 years! The whole Tennis Intelligentsua was so on board w/ Roger they didn't think Nadovic could catch him! Nadovic have since destroyed Fed's top records! Novak can only pad those #'s!

 

[Moxie]

We should be willing to change (or evolve) our position as new data comes in, no?

I don't see how my position can change if I don't believe there is one GOAT across all of tennis.

I mean, the situation isn't static and Novak keeps padding his record.

But that's exactly it, isn't it. He's "padding" his record in a time when his big rivals in this Golden Age of Men's Tennis have retired, or nearly so. Didn't you just discount above Jimmy Connors' record of "most titles" for "piling on" the 250s (which I don't think were "250's" then)? But it was a different time, too. They made different choices, plus they had to rake in the money in the days of much smaller winnings. You have no idea what appearance fees may have made him choose those. He won his last tournament in 1988, so it's a record that has stood for 35 years. I don't see why you should diminish it. And you have to see why this makes records hard to compare across eras.

As to the GS win %, you say that perhaps Borg's shouldn't count, because he retired so early. But again, this is manipulating statistics to account for differences across eras. Doesn't that prove, then, that it's impossible to compare across eras? As to that GS win %, Novak only just passed Rafa, then, this year, I think. .883 to .880, and it only took him 18+ years to do it. Isn't that padding the resume? But you're so impressed by these new numbers.

But again, you're playing the semantic game of "GOAT" and seemingly adhering to a definition that preserves Rafa's status getting a sizable piece of the pie. Unfortunately this requires turning more and more of a blind-eye to the historical record.

Here you are definitely reading in to what I've said. How am I adhering to a definition that "preserves Rafa's status getting a sizable piece of the pie?" You're the one that brought up his Clay-GOATdom. (I just added the GS% above...that was news to me.) And, frankly, I don't think it's going to take my arguing it for Rafa to get a big piece of the conversation. Nor Roger.

You have been invested for a long time in Novak getting to the top of the pile...basically since it was clearly not going to be Roger. You've been telling us it was inevitable, basically since the Nole Slam, IIRC. Until that stalled. You've told me that I should resign myself to Rafa being the lesser amongst 3 equals. Until he wasn't. So, naturally your position has had to "evolve." You're going to tell me that you have no investment in Novak, but you have been waiting a long time to be right on this one. It should mean something in your estimation of the Big 3 across time that it has taken this long.

You love your numbers, but you're not averse to "tweaking" them, as per above. These are value judgements, made by you. I'm not saying that Novak's numbers and accomplishments aren't gaudy (which I mean in the best way) and amazing, but just because you keep wanting to commit to a GOAT doesn't mean that I have to, too. If you stop telling me I have an agenda, I'll stop telling you that you have one. xoxo

 

[Moxie]

To be clear, I'm not denigrating such conversations - I enjoy them. I'm just saying that when all is said and done, the "GOAT" is the player with the best career resume. Full stop. And it is hard to deny that at this point in time, that is Novak Djokovic - at least for the Open Era.

But maybe the problem is the term itself, and if I rank players I shouldn't use it and instead say "Best Tennis Career of All Time" (BTCOAT). Not quite as catchy, unfortunately.

I couldn't understand why you were saying that Kieran and I were arguing semantics with you on this issue, but perhaps there is a semantics problem, though some of it is still "philosophical," at least for me. We've said there is no GOAT. What you are talking about, as per above, is the greatest collection of career stats. Well, now we're getting somewhere. But I agree with Kieran when he says that you have to dig into it in human terms.

Well, I think the problem is the framing. Novak, like most players, has had a career in various phases, what I have sometimes called Development Phase (2004-10), Peak Phase (2011-16), Late Prime or Plateau Phase (2018-23). What makes his career unusual is that it looked like he was entering his peak in 2007-08 and wasn't going to get much better, but then had a second jump in 2011 to mega-star status. Like Roger and Rafa, he's also maintaining a high "late prime" phase, something that was mostly lacking from men's tennis during the Open Era, or at least going back to the early 70s when Laver and Rosewall were still hanging around at a high level.

Here is a place I have a problem with your classifications. You glide past "Development Phase." 2004-2010. He won one Major in 2008, then not another for 3 years. Why is that? He won a Major, so it wasn't all wheat gluten allergies. He had a Roger and Rafa problem, too. I don't see how it makes sense to discount what he couldn't do against them in their more salad days, if you're going to glorify all he did as they waned.

"Late-Prime/Plateau (2018-23": Bizarre to think that a player could still be classified in his "prime" at 30-31. Sure, he has played great, once he got out of the doldrums he was in. (You genteelly skipped 2017+.) But his main competition was even longer in the tooth, and miles on the body. Other than that, he was playing against the Manila Folders. Not so hard to look "prime" against most of them.

You find it self-interested of us to delve into the varying eras and phases of the Big 3, while at the same time ignoring them yourself.

 

[Moxie]

I'm still one to say Roger's legacy was hurt by hanging on for those last several years! It was more a money grab IMO as he was abused by Novak; even on faster courts! I thought Fed's legend would have endured more if he had left after his Wimbledon win in 2012! Going for over 5 years w/o a major win wasn't worth it to add those last 3! He's still in 3rd place! The "WHAT IF?" would have been a conversation starter if he had ended on a high note! He faded and faded fast after the Wimbledon loss to Novak in 2019! It's the reason both Borg & Sampras were given more credit for their accomplishments! Borg did lead the Open Era w/ 11 Majors for quite a few years when Pete caught up and passed him! We love Pete so much, he was anointed "The GOAT" w/o a FO final on his resume! Lucky it became moot as 3 players zipped past him in record time! Laver had decades to relish his position! Pete lost it to Roger in leas than 9 years! The whole Tennis Intelligentsua was so on board w/ Roger they didn't think Nadovic could catch him! Nadovic have since destroyed Fed's top records! Novak can only pad those #'s!

I cannot understand any POV that says winning more Majors was a poor strategy. And any notion that is was a "money grab" is risible. Roger has long had more money than King Midas, between winnings and endorsements.

If Roger had quit in 2012, he'd be stuck at 17 Majors. Not the same legacy...and farther back in 3rd place. I really don't get your point.

I will agree with you that I think the tennis establishment was invested in Roger as GOAT. Rafa and Novak surprised them, and fans. I still think Roger's consecutive weeks at #1 is a record that will stand for a long time. It's pretty impressive.