In order to avoid the OP being 3 pages long, I'll post my reply to
@El Dude here, as well as a general take on the issue of GOATness.
Let me start off by saying that my stance on this has actually changed throughout the years, and has been influenced by watching other sports significantly, and the GOAT debates that entailed in those sports.
I used to think it simply boils down to major wins, which is something relatively unique about tennis (I guess this also applies in golf? I don't follow that sport so I'm not sure). It's easy to understand why: Players put more emphasis on slams. So naturally, they're trying more in majors, they're more focused, give it their all, etc... it's what separates the men from the boys. Yes, it's a cliche, but it's true. There's a reason why the same guys have dominated them over the past 13 years (which is insane).
This however, raises a number of other issues, some valid, some less so:
1) Majors weren't considered the end-all be all until maybe the mid-80's (post-Borg). Players used to skip the Australian Open, for example.
2) If we're looking exclusively at majors, and look at no other thing as long as there is no tie, then are we saying all these other tournaments don't matter?
3) Say two players are separated by one major, but the one with one fewer major is much more accomplished in almost every other category, is the one with more majors really greater? Is that ONE major really THIS valuable? I'm not talking about what the media will say, or the general consensus, but I'm asking what YOU, the fine folks of tennis.com/tennisdigital/tennisfrontier/tennis-prose/TennisFrontierAgain think... In other words, how to quantify a major in terms of currency: 1 major = how many Masters 1000 events/weeks at number 1/WTF's/etc...?
What I don't like about majors being the one and only factor (unless there's a tie) is that I think it's a fairly rigid concept, that detracts from what should be a much more interesting and rich debate. Because we're simply boiling it down to numbers. Now, just to be clear, this is not a Nadal fan's attempt at downplaying major wins just to give Rafa a chance at GOATness. I consider Roger Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time, but it goes beyond the number of Grand Slam wins (more on that in a second).
And this is where other sports' influences have shifted my views on this debate. Though I always considered Roger to be the GOAT, I have a major bombshell to drop on you fine folks:
I think Roger Federer will be the GOAT even if Nadal does tie him (I mean in my eyes, not what the media will say), or surpasses him by a single major win (for the record neither event will happen, but this is to answer
@El Dude's question, and to explain my stance on the GOAT issue).
For starters, and this will sound very subjective and vague (and it is), but I just think Federer is simply...better at tennis. I don't know how else to explain this, but I've watched them their entire careers, and have seen a combined hundreds of matches of each player, and in my mind, one is just better at his craft than the other. This is the dreaded "eye-test." I fully understand how subjective this is, but I can't get past this. I've watched their respective peaks, and Federer was just more dominant, more in control, less vulnerable, and played at an even higher level on average (though I agree with something that
@GameSetAndMath stated in the other thread: Nadal is better on clay than Federer is anywhere else and I don't think it's particularly close).
I think a major part in determining who a better player is (which I understand may not exactly be the same as who the "GREATER" player is), is looking at how they perform at their peaks. To me, that's why Messi is the best football (soccer) player ever (he played at a higher level over 4 seasons between 2009-2012 than anyone did in history), that's why Jordan is the best basketball player ever despite not winning the most rings, and why Federer is the best tennis player ever.
Of course, team sports are different, because wins are not completely in one player's hand (which is why I think it's stupid to claim a player can't be the GOAT b/c they haven't won an event that occurs once every 4 years and there are like 295 other variables in play that affect the result). Tennis is simpler: Two guys square off and the better player usually wins (yes I realize the irony of this statement since Nadal holds the h2h edge over Roger).
As such, yes, longevity matters, especially when assessing greatness, and you can't just look at peaks (for instance Djokovic, to me, had a better peak than Nadal and played a higher level of tennis. But there's no doubt Rafa's been the greater player so far). So if Nadal were to surpass Roger in terms of major count, it would mean he's been even better than Roger has been in the tail end of his career, which would be HUGELY impressive given that they're separated by 4 slams at the moment. And while there is no denying the impressiveness of guys dominating in their 30's, there are just so many factors determining who wins a major, that just using them as the sole barometer takes away from the nuances and interesting variables of tennis.
Doesn't it seem silly to someone that we can claim one player to be better than the other for winning ONE more major? I've become a firm believer in diminishing marginal returns. As stupid as this may sound, the more majors you win, the less the difference one major makes in terms of greatness. Yes, I realize how counter-intuitive this sounds but let me explain.
20 slams and 21 slams are both INSANE numbers. Isn't it nuts to claim player A is unequivocally greater than player B for winning 1 more slam, without taking into account all the factors that may have contributed to that slam (or any other slam that they may have won). Injuries, draws, level of competition, injuries to rivals, surfaces, etc... are all factors that may come into play. I know many of these issues are taboo around here because they're equated to excuse making, but are we really pretending they don't influence outcome of matches and tournaments? Keep in mind, a player who wins 3 slams being considered better than a player with only 2, makes some sense, but once we've reached obscene double digit amounts, it becomes less clear.
Also, what if as
@El Dude pointed out, all of Nadal's upcoming slam wins are at the FO? Now, I've always thought saying "yeah but he's mainly only won on clay" is silly. Yeah, and Djokovic has mainly won on hards (not to mention Nadal has a great non-clay resume). It's just more accepted because more majors are played on hards, which is a complete arbitrary happenstance. The powers that be decided that the majority of tennis is played on hards so it is. It's not like hards are a better surface or more indicative of tennis skills. Hell, there used to be no majors played on hards at one point in the past. What if two majors were played on clay all along? So that argument to me doesn't hold up in general. However, for the purposes of this debate, it would matter a little, as there is very clear evidence that Roger's game is more suited for all surface play than Nadal's. And that deserves recognition and reward. The results have come accordingly anyway.
Hell, maybe it's none of the factors above, maybe the player with 20 slams had one bad day at the office in a final of a major he was expected to win (or any other round), and they didn't win it. OK, they only have themselves to blame to be sure, as they weren't good enough on the day, but it's absolutely bonkers that ONE match essentially ends up being the reason some consider one to be better than the other in a career in which they've played a thousand match or so. For example, do you remember Nadal's missed backhand against Novak at the 2012 AO final? The one that would have put him 4-2 40-15 up on serve in the final set? He makes that and he's likely 5-2 up, one game away from the championship. Imagine if that ends up being a reason he doesn't tie Roger in the slam tally. If you're in the "majors are the only deciding factor" camp, isn't it crazy that literally a few inches are deciding the debate? I understand that's how tennis works, and it is a game of inches. But it's a game of inches on the micro level, ie who wins a point or a match...not who's the better player between two players who've won a combined 40 majors (which would be the case in case Rafa ties Roger or surpasses him).
Now, the gap between Roger and Rafa at the moment is 4 slams. That's significant. You don't win 4 slams simply due to external factors, injuries, luck, etc... Therefore, if someone were to claim Roger is better because of those 4 extra slams, I get it. You don't need to go through all the other factors when there's a clear gap that's indicative of one player simply being better than the other over his career so far. But, my point is, if the numbers end up being closer, it's simply not black and white anymore.
