Monte Carlo Rolex Masters 2019, Monaco, ATP Masters 1000

[Ricardo]

Moxie, I'm torn about Fiero's statement that you bolded. On one hand I kind of agree with him in that I don't think Rafa can do much more on clay to improve his legacy, if we take "legacy" to be a more subjective or inter-subjective thing, and not something that is easily quantifiable. He's already the very best on clay - winning another RG or two doesn't change that (bester and besterest?). And just as I think another RG would improve Roger's or Novak's resumes more than any other Slam, so too do I think a non-clay Slam would be better for Rafa than another RG. But that's more of a subjective feeling than statistical analysis. In the end, a Slam is a Slam, and it isn't like Rafa was a slouch off clay.

I do see your point as well. As I said, Rafa did just fine on hards and grass and I don't think we can penalize him for being so dominant on clay. I mean, most agree that he's the "surface GOAT" which is something no one else can say. Some like to use that to downplay his overall greatness, but I see it as a positive. He is the best there ever was on his best surface - better than Roger or Pete on grass, Novak or Roger on hards, etc. And while I know fellow Fedsters like to downplay the 2008 Wimbledon final, it was something for him to beat Roger in his own house - something Roger never did to him. At the very least it was symbolic of him surpassing Roger as the overall greatest in the game - something he did when Roger was still just shy of his 27th birthday, not exactly an old man (on the other hand, Roger's dominance of Rafa in 2017 earned some of that back).

As far as the "race for GOAT" that Fiero mentions, while I generally prefer the "herd" approach (that there are a bunch of GOATs), if we want to try to order them, I do think Roger still has a solid edge over the other two, although this is mainly due to longevity and accumulative stats. If we cut his career off at Rafa's age (almost 33) or Novak's (almost 32), their careers are similar:

Rafa (now): 17 Slams, 80 titles, 196 weeks at #1
Roger through 2014 (age 33, about Rafa's age): 17 Slams, 82 titles, 302 weeks
Novak (now): 15 Slams, 73 titles, 248 weeks at #1
Roger through 2013 (age 32, about Novak's age): 17 Slams, 77 titles, 302 weeks

On surface, Roger looks slightly better, but not by much - and close enough to make a deeper look necessary, this being only a rough comparison. And note that the two Roger lines are the equivalent age of Rafa or Novak later this year, not right now. But in the end, we don't know how much longer Rafa or Novak will be able to perform at an elite level, and thus whether they can come close to Roger's longevity.

I do think you are spinning a bit to downplay Novak's greatness. As I've pointed out before, Rafa was every bit as good in 2011 as he had been in 2010 against every other player except for Novak. In other words, the difference between probably his best year (2010) and maybe his 4th or 5th or, at worst, 6th best year (2011) is Novak reaching his prime. And don't forget that Rafa was as good as ever in 2013 and Novak held his own against him. In other words, 2011-14 saw both in their peak forms, and Novak edged Rafa 12-7 during that time. We don't have a comparative "shared peak" overlap for Roger-Rafa or Roger-Novak.

I also think that Novak has a better chance of catching and surpassing Roger than Rafa does in terms of major accomplishments. He has a good shot at 311+ weeks at #1, probably an equal shot at 21+ Slams and 102+ titles.

The bottom line, though, is that the story isn't over yet. We don't know if Roger can surge and win another Slam and pad his other records. We don't know how much longer Rafa can avoid significant injury (the big worry being that recovery becomes harder and harder, the older you get, and while he's been overall quite healthy the last few years, coming back from a long lay off at 33 or 34 is a bit different than at 27). And we don't know how well Novak will be able to maintain mental focus and discipline, aka "the eye of the tiger."

I think we'll know a lot more in a year but it will be 2-3 years before we have a more definitive sense how the overall GOAT rankings will look. My guess, or maybe wishful thinking, is that Roger will be able to leverage one more Slam and 10+ more titles to get #21 and 110+ titles. I think Rafa has another Slam or two in him and a handful more titles but probably fall short of 20 Slams and 100 titles. And Novak will have spells of dominance over the next two or three years, but they'll be shorter and fewer and farther between. Who knows what he'll end up with, but I suspect 18-19 and 90+ titles, like Rafa, although I think he just sneaks past Roger for weeks at #1.

So I think Roger maintains his lead overall in terms of overall career resume, but that the other two will be close enough that their other qualities will make the GOAT issue debatable for years to come, until Felix Auger Aliassime wins his 22nd Slam in 2034, during AOC's second term .

But as Carol would say, "who knows what the future will bring." That's just some wild and fun speculation.

So we have your expert opinion again?

 

[DarthFed]

In 2011 Fed still managed to beat peak Novak at RG, and was match points up at USO so really held his own in 2 out of the three slams they met, so I wouldn’t say he was so owned. Rafa on the other hand was a bit different, but it’s got more to do with their matchup issue than Novak just being flat out better. Same as Fed vs Rafa, I never thought Rafa was twice as good back then (23-10?).

Yes I meant more from 2011-current Nole has gotten the better of both of them by quite a lot. And you're right that it's also pretty telling in 2011 that Nadal was decimated while Roger held his own.

And as much as people will bitch at me for using "age issue"...one guy is 6 years older than Djoker and is now old AF and the other one is just a year older than Novak. It isn't apples to apples as much as Moxie and other Nad fans pretend it is.

 

[shawnbm]

The fact that the Big Three are still at the top of the game and have won most of the slams of the last two years at their advanced age is unprecedented in the Open Era. Can't we just confess that they are simply better than everyone else and on any given day? As between the three of them, you really can't parse it. Each one has gotten into the others' heads at various points and all have won on all surfaces many times over. It is astounding the players in their twenties have been unable to break their collective stranglehold on the top prizes. This has never happened before for this long. It is unreal.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I'm torn about Fiero's statement that you bolded. On one hand I kind of agree with him in that I don't think Rafa can do much more on clay to improve his legacy, if we take "legacy" to be a more subjective or inter-subjective thing, and not something that is easily quantifiable. He's already the very best on clay - winning another RG or two doesn't change that (bester and besterest?). And just as I think another RG would improve Roger's or Novak's resumes more than any other Slam, so too do I think a non-clay Slam would be better for Rafa than another RG. But that's more of a subjective feeling than statistical analysis. In the end, a Slam is a Slam, and it isn't like Rafa was a slouch off clay.

I do see your point as well. As I said, Rafa did just fine on hards and grass and I don't think we can penalize him for being so dominant on clay. I mean, most agree that he's the "surface GOAT" which is something no one else can say. Some like to use that to downplay his overall greatness, but I see it as a positive. He is the best there ever was on his best surface - better than Roger or Pete on grass, Novak or Roger on hards, etc. And while I know fellow Fedsters like to downplay the 2008 Wimbledon final, it was something for him to beat Roger in his own house - something Roger never did to him. At the very least it was symbolic of him surpassing Roger as the overall greatest in the game - something he did when Roger was still just shy of his 27th birthday, not exactly an old man (on the other hand, Roger's dominance of Rafa in 2017 earned some of that back).

As far as the "race for GOAT" that Fiero mentions, while I generally prefer the "herd" approach (that there are a bunch of GOATs), if we want to try to order them, I do think Roger still has a solid edge over the other two, although this is mainly due to longevity and accumulative stats. If we cut his career off at Rafa's age (almost 33) or Novak's (almost 32), their careers are similar:

Rafa (now): 17 Slams, 80 titles, 196 weeks at #1
Roger through 2014 (age 33, about Rafa's age): 17 Slams, 82 titles, 302 weeks
Novak (now): 15 Slams, 73 titles, 248 weeks at #1
Roger through 2013 (age 32, about Novak's age): 17 Slams, 77 titles, 302 weeks

On surface, Roger looks slightly better, but not by much - and close enough to make a deeper look necessary, this being only a rough comparison. And note that the two Roger lines are the equivalent age of Rafa or Novak later this year, not right now. But in the end, we don't know how much longer Rafa or Novak will be able to perform at an elite level, and thus whether they can come close to Roger's longevity.

I do think you are spinning a bit to downplay Novak's greatness. As I've pointed out before, Rafa was every bit as good in 2011 as he had been in 2010 against every other player except for Novak. In other words, the difference between probably his best year (2010) and maybe his 4th or 5th or, at worst, 6th best year (2011) is Novak reaching his prime. And don't forget that Rafa was as good as ever in 2013 and Novak held his own against him. In other words, 2011-14 saw both in their peak forms, and Novak edged Rafa 12-7 during that time. We don't have a comparative "shared peak" overlap for Roger-Rafa or Roger-Novak.

I also think that Novak has a better chance of catching and surpassing Roger than Rafa does in terms of major accomplishments. He has a good shot at 311+ weeks at #1, probably an equal shot at 21+ Slams and 102+ titles.

The bottom line, though, is that the story isn't over yet. We don't know if Roger can surge and win another Slam and pad his other records. We don't know how much longer Rafa can avoid significant injury (the big worry being that recovery becomes harder and harder, the older you get, and while he's been overall quite healthy the last few years, coming back from a long lay off at 33 or 34 is a bit different than at 27). And we don't know how well Novak will be able to maintain mental focus and discipline, aka "the eye of the tiger."

I think we'll know a lot more in a year but it will be 2-3 years before we have a more definitive sense how the overall GOAT rankings will look. My guess, or maybe wishful thinking, is that Roger will be able to leverage one more Slam and 10+ more titles to get #21 and 110+ titles. I think Rafa has another Slam or two in him and a handful more titles but probably fall short of 20 Slams and 100 titles. And Novak will have spells of dominance over the next two or three years, but they'll be shorter and fewer and farther between. Who knows what he'll end up with, but I suspect 18-19 and 90+ titles, like Rafa, although I think he just sneaks past Roger for weeks at #1.

So I think Roger maintains his lead overall in terms of overall career resume, but that the other two will be close enough that their other qualities will make the GOAT issue debatable for years to come, until Felix Auger Aliassime wins his 22nd Slam in 2034, during AOC's second term .

But as Carol would say, "who knows what the future will bring." That's just some wild and fun speculation.

I don't believe that you're interpreting correctly what Fiero intended in your initial paragraph...Fiero has cut him out of the GOAT conversation already, due to the weight of clay on it, which was my objection. As to my "spinning" things against Novak, I was addressing Fiero's point that Novak was so unlucky to have had to endure so many years in the wake of Fedal. I had to offer my counter to that.

 

[tented]

The Spanish Bull's streak would continue until the following spring in 2007 when Federer finally defeated him in the Hamburg final (after Rafa slid by Novak in a three hour semifinal). I recall those Halcyon days--LOL!

I suspect you’re thinking of the four-hour semifinal in Madrid, in 2009. Rafa and Novak didn’t play each other in Hamburg.

 

[Federberg]

^Yup. That's correct. It was Hewitt who pushed Rafa to 3 sets in the Hamburg semi-final I believe

 

[shawnbm]

Hewitt pushed Nadal to three sets on clay during the streak? I don't recall that.

 

[Federberg]

Hewitt pushed Nadal to three sets on clay during the streak? I don't recall that.

I think it was him. I won't swear by it. But reasonably sure. That was when I still used to care about Federer having chances against Rafa. I was young once!

 

[tented]

^Yup. That's correct. It was Hewitt who pushed Rafa to 3 sets in the Hamburg semi-final I believe

Correct.