That wasn't my point, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Seriously though, my point was that +178 weeks at #1 is a better argument than +1 (or maybe even 2 or 3) Slams. 178 weeks = 3+ years. Meaning, Novak reigned supreme over the tour for over three more years time than Rafa ever did. That is truly meaningful, especially when you consider percentages (387 weeks is 185% of 209, and Novak has a chance of reaching 200%, or 418; on the other hand, 23 is 105% of 22, and even if Novak reaches 25, that's still only 114% of 22).
To respond to your other question, I'm mostly pointing out the issue of context but more so, the definition of what constitutes "greatness" and how we define "GOAT."
I'll address by pointing out how they shine; here is one for each:
Rafa is called the "surface GOAT," and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Now while clay is only one-third of the total tour, and you could say that Rafa being behind Novak and Roger on hards and grass more than evens the field. But consider that Rafa on his best surface is more dominant than any player has ever been - probably going back to the 19th century. The player we've seen over the last two decades on clay, is the most dominant player in tennis history. The best player I've ever seen is Rafa on clay.
As for Roger, his 2004-07 peak was a period of sustained dominance that we haven't seen from anyone - including Rafa and Novak, at least for a four-year period. At one point he was over 200 Elo points above anyone else - the highest gap in tennis history. Meaning, at that point the gap between Roger and every other player on tour was greater than at any point in the Open Era. He's been criticized by "Weak Era Theory," but that is a different point. He completely dominated his own cohort unlike any player has before or since, and remained third best for another decade after as Rafa and then Novak peaked.
But your comment about "tennis intelligentsia" obfuscates something important. Greatness isn't just about numbers, it is also about a player's ability to reach a quality of play on court that amazes and delights. In that sense, Rafa and Roger are every bit Novak's equal. The three have played levels of excellence unlike any other players, perhaps only equalled by (in a very different context) Borg and Laver, and maybe McEnroe.
But again, all things told, Novak's resume is the best. On that we agree. But to say that equates with GOATdom is to decide on the definition of what "greatness" means. You mentioned the political climate, and this is part of the problem: people argue while disagreeing on definitions of what they're arguing about, whether it is "woke" or this or that ism or phobia, etc etc. So if you want to say that Novak has the greatest career resume, and we both agree that this defines GOATdom, then sure, I'll agree that he's the GOAT - as I've said before, going back a few years. But I don't think we can close the door on the definition.
- Nole Blog
