The GOAT Discussion (Men)

[Billie]

I just read this somewhere else and I really didn't know where to copy it, this seems as good a place as any.  It pertains to Nole's titles and some of his statistics:

 

1. novak broke fed's record of 11 straight finals in a season by reaching the final in bejing,for his 12th straight final!

2. novak's top-10 wins since the beginning of 2011 far and away trump the rest of the field:

Djokovic — 111
Nadal — 59
Federer — 57
Murray — 37
Wawrinka — 28

3. some of novak's top events are as follows, and as you can see it's not just one surface; he has multiple title events on both grass and clay, too:

6 - Beijing titles
5 - Australian Open, Miami titles
4 - Indian Wells, Rome, Dubai, ATP Finals titles
3 - Wimbledon, Bercy, Canada titles

4. this breakdown of titles won shows that the vast majority of novak's titles have been elite: slams, WTFs and masters titles make up 38 of his 56 titles for 68%. nadal's masters and slams make up 62% of his titles, and fed's masters, slams and WTFs make up 54% of his titles. thus, novak's percentage of elite titles is the highest of all. [this can explain - to some extent - why he beats so many more top 10s. he consistently competes at TOP events...not to mention consistently going deep in them!]

5. novak's rivalries with the two players considered "GOATS" are the top two rivalries EVER. novak is the common denominator in both. he is tied with fed and 1 away from tying rafa (this chart is from before today's final). thus he has broken even with 2 guys many call the GOAT contenders.

Nadal and Nole have 45 meetings now and Rafa leads by 1 (23: 21) as of today.

All of this does not tell me that he had it easy at any point in his career. B-)

 

[Mastoor]

Great records Billie. I think it is amazing that No1e won 111 matches against top tenners in not even 5 years, while his idol Sampras won 124 in his entire career (Becker 121).

 

I also like that No1e has 22 wins against each Nike doll.

 

 

 

[Billie]

I know, the top ten wins is perhaps the most amazing thing from the above post.   Nole also had a good number of top 10 wins from the beginning of his career, so it would be fun to have somebody include those as well.   In the days when Pete and BB competed, top players got upset more often than in the last few years.  I think Federer really started that trend of constantly going deep in almost all tournaments.

 

 

[Mastoor]

Here is the career stats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records#Playing_top_10_ranked_opponents

I'd like to add that No1e had 22 wins against top tenners this year so far and i think that is more than anyone ever did.

 

[britbox]

Revisiting one of the first threads on this board in light of two major since... anyone got a different take on their own Top 10?

1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Nadal
4. Djokovic
5. Sampras
6. Borg
7. Pancho Gonzalez
8. Connors
9. Rosewall
10.Lendl

I've got Nadal above Sampras even though he's done nothing since and Djokovic too now... (I have been persuaded by the power of reasonable argument that Nadal should be higher than the Pistol... just)

Tennis Base have various formulas and have come up with the following:

 

[MikeOne]

great points to back Novak as GOAT. Novak also has the record for for most masters titles and won 4 slams in a row, something Fed and Rafa could never do. Nole also has many wins over Nadal on clay and enjoys a winning record against Rafa and Fed.

We can always nit pick and claim Nadal and Fed have been declining since let's say 2014 onwards (although Fed had a great 2015) but we can also belittle Fed's rivals early in his career. I believe Novak is indeed the most complete tennis player ever but not the greatest, yet. I think right now Novak is probably 4th greatest but rising.

I do think he has the most complete game, devoid of any weaknesses and having many strengths. I think it's more interesting to compare their peak games.

At his best, Federer had more weapons than Djokovic but more weaknesses. The way Nadal exploited Fed's bh was really something and we simply cannot ignore this. When on, Fed had more offense, in particular his serve, fh and ability to attack the net efficiently but his defense was a bit below Novak's. Novak also has very good offensive skills as he has showed against Federer himself at slams; when Novak is dialed in, he is Agassi like and takes time away from opponents. So Fed edges Nole on offense but Nole edges Fed on defense. The tiebreaker to me is the backhand, where at times, Fed's bh was a liability (attackable)..Novak has no liabilities. Nole > Fed by the slightest of margins in terms of completeness.

Nadal is interesting. I think Rafa's offense is underestimated and his defense way overestimated. I have studied Nadal's game very closely for many years and i always thought he was mainly an offensive player who used angles, spin rather than flatness. Nadal typically looks to dictate play and typically only plays defense when he's forced to. This is in stark contrast to true defensive players like Hewitt, Simon and Murray who often times don't attack during neutral rallies. Simon and Hewitt were happy to rally and sort of baited opponents to attack, so they could counter. The reason Nadal struggles with Novak is due to his poor counterpunching ability, which is way below Murray's or Simon's or Hewitt's. People claim Nadal is good defensively because he runs fast but this is just part of the equation, as important is what a player is able to do once he reaches the ball, especially a fast ball. Hasn't everyone noticed how Del Potro and Novak and even Nalbandian were able to expose Nadal's poor counterpunching ability? They all attacked Nadal's long winding forehand knowing Nadal is a poor counterpuncher; they all knew that if they attacked in the proper way, Nadal would be unable to counter with depth or pace. Novak has used these tactics brilliantly, attacking Nadal's forehand systematically until balls get shorter and shorter. This is a strategy Nole cannot employ against Murray as effectively, who is much better than Nadal at using the opponent's pace. Simon gave Nole fits with his great counterpunching ability at AO. Ever notice how Nole seems to look sublime against Nadal and not so good vs Murray (even when beating him)? It's Nadal's horrible counterpunching abilities, off fh side.

So, Nole > Nadal in completeness too, because he has better offense and defense.

 

[Moxie]

Mike, while I appreciate that you recognized the strength of Nadal's offensive game, which some detractors tend to ignore, I don't agree with how much you diminish his defense. I think in some ways you are looking at current era with some and ignoring the past with others. I'm having trouble with your assertion that Nadal is a "poor" counter-puncher. Del Potro and Nalbandian have both troubled Rafa, but he also solved them. Djokovic is surely a match-up problem, but he wasn't really for years, and even after 2011, Rafa came up with a game plan that worked in some big moments, until he really wasn't playing his best.

I also disagree that Djokovic's game is devoid of weaknesses. While he's been incredibly strong over the last few years, he's got problems with his smash, he's susceptible to the elements, and he can let his own head get in his way. There was a period of time when he had the yips on his serve, and really didn't believe he could beat Federer and Nadal. Since they've faded, he's done better, and his game has improved, but they have peaked at different times. The 4-in-a-row is impressive, to be sure. But he's still got 12 Majors and Nadal has 14. And Rafa has the best record over Fed and Novak in finals of Majors. In the sweetest spots of most of their careers, it was Rafa who was coming out best. You're free to make your own choice, but I don't think you can put Djokovic over Nadal at this point, except by making subjective arguments, as you have.

Otherwise, I find the Tennis Base formula to be rather incomprehensible, and not a reflection of how most fans would rate the players.

 

[britbox]

My understanding of the tennisbase formula is that they categorize tournaments and Grand Slams AND Pro Slams are Category A.

In which case they are classing a Pro Slam with usually around 12 entrants as being the equivalent of Grand Slam which has a full field (128 entrants AFTER qualifying).... which is pretty ridiculous.... It gets tiresome reading that Rosewall has 19,20+ slams... They aren't equivalent.

Also some count Laver's pro slams and just add them onto his tally... well, if you count his pro slams then you shouldn't count his amateur slams...

 

[Moxie]

My understanding of the tennisbase formula is that they categorize tournaments and Grand Slams AND Pro Slams are Category A.

In which case they are classing a Pro Slam with usually around 12 entrants as being the equivalent of Grand Slam which has a full field (128 entrants AFTER qualifying).... which is pretty ridiculous.... It gets tiresome reading that Rosewall has 19,20+ slams... They aren't equivalent.

Also some count Laver's pro slams and just add them onto his tally... well, if you count his pro slams then you shouldn't count his amateur slams...

There had to be some machination with how they came up with that wonky list. The GOAT conversation may never end, but you could weigh it out in your hand better than that. At a certain point, stats don't tell the tail.

 

[MikeOne]

Mike, while I appreciate that you recognized the strength of Nadal's offensive game, which some detractors tend to ignore, I don't agree with how much you diminish his defense. I think in some ways you are looking at current era with some and ignoring the past with others. I'm having trouble with your assertion that Nadal is a "poor" counter-puncher. Del Potro and Nalbandian have both troubled Rafa, but he also solved them. Djokovic is surely a match-up problem, but he wasn't really for years, and even after 2011, Rafa came up with a game plan that worked in some big moments, until he really wasn't playing his best.

I also disagree that Djokovic's game is devoid of weaknesses. While he's been incredibly strong over the last few years, he's got problems with his smash, he's susceptible to the elements, and he can let his own head get in his way. There was a period of time when he had the yips on his serve, and really didn't believe he could beat Federer and Nadal. Since they've faded, he's done better, and his game has improved, but they have peaked at different times. The 4-in-a-row is impressive, to be sure. But he's still got 12 Majors and Nadal has 14. And Rafa has the best record over Fed and Novak in finals of Majors. In the sweetest spots of most of their careers, it was Rafa who was coming out best. You're free to make your own choice, but I don't think you can put Djokovic over Nadal at this point, except by making subjective arguments, as you have.

Otherwise, I find the Tennis Base formula to be rather incomprehensible, and not a reflection of how most fans would rate the players.

don't get me wrong, Nadal has great defense, what i'm trying to say that it's overestimated by some. I have always been a Nadal fan and i never felt he was a good counterpuncher. What is a good counterpuncher? Hewitt, Simon, Murray etc.. All these guys can shorten their backswing and use the opponent's pace to re-direct defensive shots efficiently. Nadal is horrible at this given his long winding forehand and the trajectory of his forehand (coming under the ball ), this all results in a forehand that is deadly when it has time but very ordinary when time is taken away. Notice how Novak usually beats Murray in a ugly fashion yet seems to hit so many more winners against Rafa. Murray isn't faster than Nadal but he's superior at using the opponent's pace to re-direct the ball with depth and speed. Nadal, when pushed back and attacked, usually leaves the ball shorter and shorter and this is something Djoker exploits. I stand by my belief that even though Nadal is a good defender due to speed, he's a poor counterpuncher when compared to the elite counterpunchers of the game. I believe Novak is better than Rafa at both defense and offense.

as far a weaknesses, i don't consider an average smash a weakness given a smash is used occasionally whereas a bh is required on virtually half of the ground strokes. Novak's smash may not be the best but it's not a weakness because it's pretty average and seldom needed during a match.

as far as being subjective, who here has scientific proof of anything? it's all opinion. I never said Nole > Nadal in greatness, i'm talking about how complete their games are and who has exhibited the higher level of tennis. I will say though that there is a strong argument to be made that Nole > Nadal in greatness given a couple of reasons:

1. Nole has dominated more than Nadal ever did. He has also been ranked #1 for more years
2. Nadal has won 9 of 14 slams at FO for a 1-9-2-2 tally. Nole's tally is 6-1-3-2 which is a bit more balanced IMO.
3. Nole's performance at EOY Masters. This tournament's importance is somewhat underrated. Remember, it's the top 8 players who first face each other in a round robin and then play a SF an F round for the cup. This is the tournament of the elites and Nole has won it 5 times vs 0 for Nadal.

So it's very close and it mainly comes down to Nadal's extra 2 slams vs Nole's extra weeks at #1, higher level of dominance and 5 eoy masters titles. Close call..

 

[Moxie]

That was very well-explained, and I appreciate it. The EOY is a thing, and Rafa doesn't have one...that's a thing. I'm not sure where "balance" in terms of Majors on surfaces matters, between them: RN - 9 clay, 2 grass, 3 HC; ND - 8 HC, 3 grass, 1 clay. If you look at it that way, Nadal's is more "balanced."

As far as domination, I will go back to the definition of domination: Djoker and Fed have more weeks at #1, but Nadal dominated both of them, and the field, in the sweet spot of both Federer and Nadal's careers, and a good part of Djokovic's early career. He also led the h2h over the Big 4 for all of its existence, until Djokovic passed him a few months ago. And still Rafa tied it again. Stuck in between Roger and Novak, it was hard to crank up the weeks at #1, but given them, and his injury lay-offs, he stands pretty high on that list, too.

 

[Billie]

Nole now has 28 match win streak in consecutive majors, which is better than his previous and Fed's 27-1.

Unless he loses in the 1st round of Wimbledon, this number should improve as well.

 

[Moxie]

Nole now has 28 match win streak in consecutive majors, which is better than his previous and Fed's 27-1.

Unless he loses in the 1st round of Wimbledon, this number should improve as well.

I don't really think that consistency in Majors means that much, in the GOAT argument. It's nice, but it doesn't mean they won all of them, it just means they weren't injured and competed. And yes, went deep. But Nadal still has the best percentage of entering a Major and winning it.

 

[Billie]

I don't really think that consistency in Majors means that much, in the GOAT argument. It's nice, but it doesn't mean they won all of them, it just means they weren't injured and competed. And yes, went deep. But Nadal still has the best percentage of entering a Major and winning it.

You didn't understand me, I think. Winning 28 matches in a row in consecutive majors means that player won 4 of them in a row. What does that have to do with Nadal's percentage? Of course if you don't even enter an event when you are not 100 % healthy, you don't have any losses there. It is not easy to compete in each one of them and go deep constantly. That shouldn't be dismissed. It not only tells us that a player is great on all surfaces, but it also tells us that a player plays a lot of tough matches constantly even when not at his best and it is normal that he loses from time to time. I'd rather have my favourite compete in each of them, even if he doesn't win all of them, than not see him play at all. But that's just me.

 

[DarthFed]

Novak is basically neck and neck with Nadal career wise. The Nole slam is a huge deal. I'm a Fed fan and I can admit it, that may end up putting him #1 on the list even if he doesn't get to 17. And he also has a far superior resume than Rafa outside of slams, especially time as #1 and YEC's.

I do disagree with Mike that Rafa's defense is overrated. I think that may be a recency effect where now you watch him and you might forget just how awesome his defense was in his prime. I agree that Rafa's forehand isn't great as a counter punching shot but his backhand always was. On top of running everything down Rafa had crazy good passing shots off both wings. If his defense wasn't absolutely incredible he wouldn't have won nearly as much. With Rafa we are talking someone who never had a consistently good serve, he also is not a great returner and his backhand is usually a fairly neutral shot. Rafa made improvements from his early days but he did not develop many weapons and that's why you see him struggling a lot more as he ages than Roger has. Roger has lost plenty of movement and physicality but he has enough talent to stay relevant. I know everyone thinks I'm bitter when I say Rafa has always been a limited player but I stand by that. What Rafa did well he did EXTREMELY well and with tremendous consistency. Add that to him being probably the most mentally tough/clutch player and that's how he has had such great success.

 

[Moxie]

Novak is basically neck and neck with Nadal career wise. The Nole slam is a huge deal. I'm a Fed fan and I can admit it, that may end up putting him #1 on the list even if he doesn't get to 17. And he also has a far superior resume than Rafa outside of slams, especially time as #1 and YEC's.

I do disagree with Mike that Rafa's defense is overrated. I think that may be a decency effect. I agree that Rafa's forehand isn't great as a counter punching shot but his backhand always was. On top of running everything down Rafa had crazy good passing shots off both wings. If his defense wasn't absolutely incredible he wouldn't have won nearly as much. With Rafa we are talking someone who never had a consistently good serve, he also is not a great returner and his backhand is usually a fairly neutral shot. Rafa made improvements from his early days but he did not develop many weapons and that's why you see him struggling a lot more as he ages than Roger has. Roger has lost plenty of movement and physicality but he has enough talent to stay relevant. I know everyone thinks I'm bitter when I say Rafa has always been a limited player but I stand by that. What Rafa did well he did EXTREMELY well and with tremendous consistency. Add that to him being probably the most mentally tough/clutch player and that's how he has had such great success.

I appreciate what it must have cost you to write that, Twisted. It would be fair to note, though, that, in his prime and even now, Nadal has one of the great forehands of all-time. And the backhand can often be better than a neutral shot. His game doesn't have the variety of Federer's or Djokovic's, I'll concede. But his FH has been one of the most lethal in tennis. And his net game has been underrated. Better than Djokovic's, for the most part of their careers.

 

[Carol]

Novak is basically neck and neck with Nadal career wise. The Nole slam is a huge deal. I'm a Fed fan and I can admit it, that may end up putting him #1 on the list even if he doesn't get to 17. And he also has a far superior resume than Rafa outside of slams, especially time as #1 and YEC's.

I do disagree with Mike that Rafa's defense is overrated. I think that may be a decency effect. I agree that Rafa's forehand isn't great as a counter punching shot but his backhand always was. On top of running everything down Rafa had crazy good passing shots off both wings. If his defense wasn't absolutely incredible he wouldn't have won nearly as much. With Rafa we are talking someone who never had a consistently good serve, he also is not a great returner and his backhand is usually a fairly neutral shot. Rafa made improvements from his early days but he did not develop many weapons and that's why you see him struggling a lot more as he ages than Roger has. Roger has lost plenty of movement and physicality but he has enough talent to stay relevant. I know everyone thinks I'm bitter when I say Rafa has always been a limited player but I stand by that. What Rafa did
well he did EXTREMELY well and with tremendous consistency. Add that to him being probably the most mentally tough/clutch player and that's how he has had such great success.

I have not any idea how much tennis you have seen or how much you can dislike a player but your comment (sorry to say) seems a little absurd and ridiculous.There is not a player without mentally tough/clutch/ consistency that can be able to win, ask Novak about it. And there is not a player without talent and limited that can be #1 and can win 14 GS, impossible. To win 9 RG they need to be smart, to know a lot about the game and to have enough weapons to win otherwise they can't, ask many former players and also the ones they are playing now about it, they know by experience a lot more than you.
The worst shot of Nadal? the serve without any doubt which is the best of Federer, can you imagine if this last one wouldn't have had a good serve?

 

[DarthFed]

I appreciate what it must have cost you to write that, Twisted. It would be fair to note, though, that, in his prime and even now, Nadal has one of the great forehands of all-time. And the backhand can often be better than a neutral shot. His game doesn't have the variety of Federer's or Djokovic's, I'll concede. But his FH has been one of the most lethal in tennis. And his net game has been underrated. Better than Djokovic's, for the most part of their careers.

Absolutely agree that Rafa's forehand is one of the greatest shots in history and that goes back to my point that what he does/did well, he did extremely well and it masked some of the things I was talking about.

 

[britbox]

Bjorn Borg: "At this point, Federer is the greatest player of the game"

Former world number one Bjorn Borg was asked to give his views on the current state of tennis, with the Swede referring to Roger Federer as the greatest player of all time. He also highlighted his thoughts on when the Swiss may finally hang up his racket.

Article: http://www.vavel.com/en-us/tennis-u...derer-is-the-greatest-player-of-the-game.html

 

[EdbergsGhost]

Excellent article here by Steve Tignor as to why Djokovic should not be thrown into the "goat" debate yet. Let's enjoy the amazing tennis he's playing and let that be appreciated. There will be plenty of time for the "goat" debate by the end of his career,i if it's even a debate by that time.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/06/savoring-their-moments/59154/#.V2ptCZMrKHo