Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[the AntiPusher]

Sure, I agree with the idea you can only face who’s in front of you, and players have no control over that. I also acknowledge that Gonzalez (among my favorites which @Moxie pointed out) was playing way above his normal level. He tore through that tournament, only to face Roger in the final, who won the 07 AO without dropping a set (which I think hadn’t been done since Borg in the late 70s).

If anything, I’m thinking it’s more that Novak is facing a sea of younger players who simply aren’t good enough to take him down on the big stages. Roger had Rafa, then Novak snapping at his heels for years, but there isn’t the equivalent for Novak. There’s no one equivalent to the Big Three on the horizon, which isn’t a surprise given their ridiculously high level of success, so Novak looks safe to keep winning majors for the next few years.

Rafa , Novak and Roger are the greatest tennis players Ever ..even whenever they are not a 100 percent healthy..They have pushed each other to such a level of high caliber playing that it will NEVER be equal in most of our lifetime. I'm concerned that Rafa may be postponing having a family because he may feel it will take away from his focus. If this be the case, he needs to rethink and accept that he will most likely be playing until 38.

 

[El Dude]

just came back to catch up, even though I really don't want to participate in the eternal war I have to say I really really really hate this whole weak era strong era thing. You deal with who you have in front of you. And even the whole weak era concept fails to account for players performing above their level in specific periods. I recall the AO 07 (I think) where Roger beat Gonzalez in the final. People who know nothing will say that Gonzalez was a no body, and Roger got a cup cake title. This totally fails to take into account how well Gonzalez played in that tournament. It's the sort of garbage analysis that Max Kellerman makes that makes me want to smash my tv when he opens his pie-hole.

PS, @tented this is not a dig at you. Just the idea of weak/strong eras. I just don't think it stands up to scrutiny

I'm digging this gentler, seasoned Federberg. You're sort of like Roger coming back in 2017 after a layoff

But yeah, I agree on weak/strong eras, at least to a point. One problem is that you can't divorce the top players from an era and then call the rest weak; the rest may partially be weak because the top players are so strong.

I think another angle would be to look at "talent parity" - how talent is distributed. The late 90s/early 00s was kind of fun because the talent was spread out. Agassi was still playing really well, but Sampras was slipping and Roger hadn't emerged in his full glory, so you had those guys mixed in with the Kuerten-Moya-Rios group in their prime, and the rising Safin-Hewitt-Ferrero-Federer-Roddick group. That all changed, of course, when Roger exploded, and Rafa came in right after to dominate clay, and then Novak a few years later. Roger's group got steamrolled, mostly by Roger himself but also by Rafa. By the time Novak reached his Novakian form in 2011, most of Roger's group were gone, or shadows of their former selves.

The last 15 years is so historically anomalous. It is crazy to consider that, from 2004 through 2021 (so far), other than those three, only a handful of other players have won Slams: Gaudio in the last year before Rafa took over RG, Safin in 2005, del Potro in 2009, Murray in 2012, 13, and 16, Wawrinka in 2014-16, and Thiem in 2020. That's it: only 10 Slams out of 69 that got by those three. In some ways, it makes Murray and Wawrinka even more impressive, that they managed to win 3 each during the prime years of Rafa and Novak, even one could say that part of it was due to Rafa's slippage in 2015-16. I sure would have liked to see Stan v. 2015 facing a healthier Nadal at RG.

 

[Jelenafan]

If you have the time to read....


The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 824 pages

Middlemarch , by George Elliot, 880 pages

Bleakhouse, by Charles Dickens, 960 pages

Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes 976 pages

The Stand (1990) by Stephen King, 1. 152 pages

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, by Tolkein 1, 178 pages

War and Peace, by Leo Tolstoy 1,296 pages

The Power Broker, by Robert Caro 1, 336 pages

A Suitable Boy, by Vikram Seth 1,349 pages

In Search of Lost Times (7 novels) Marcel Proust , 4,215 pages



THE FEDALOVIC war/threads , by multiple writers, 25,399 pages and counting……

 

[Moxie]

Wow, Moxie - it is almost like you want to disagree. I offer an olive branch and you say, nope, I'm going to tell you how you're wrong, and even tell that you're not saying what you think you're saying. OK, I guess! I'll go another round .

It is hogwash that I'm disagreeing with re: age, and the nuances involved. We have some facts: Roger was born in 1981, Rafa in 1986, Novak in 1987. That isn't meaningless. And also, Rafa was an early bloomer, who broke into the elite when everyone else was significantly older. That is true, too. Things don't have to be either/or, Moxie; I'm not saying you're wrong, because obviously Rafa was an early bloomer, and obviously every player develops differently. But then you say: "You don't recognize how close to top level they were"...of course I do! I'm not an idiot. Rafa was a top player before he turned 19! His ascendancy was like a comet, from hanging out around #50 for a couple years, to being #2..in just a few months, I believe (clay season, 2005). I'M NOT DENYING THAT.

And also means that I hear what you are saying, but am also saying that the age difference means something. It isn't nothing. And more to the point, it is interesting lens to look through, but that doesn't negate individual differences of players. I thought you were saying the same, but in reverse. Now I am not so sure, as you just double-down on your bone of contention, again and again.

I didn't quite see the olive branch, but, yes, in some ways we are saying the same thing, including, that we don't know how much it matters. But I'm not trying to argue just for the sake of it.

Again, you're making assumptions - thus: hogwash. You're making stuff up to fit your narrative of what you want me to be saying, so you can disagree and continue your crusade for Rafa. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it always comes back to that: looking for another sparring partner so you can continue to defend Rafa. The problem is, you often presume attack when there isn't any, or at least in my case. I don't know how to say it otherwise, but I'll put it bluntly: Not everything I saw--in fact, very little that I say--is some Machiavellian ploy to defend Roger and/or put Rafa down! I know there are some folks that do that--names that shall not be named--but I'm not doing that!

I use birth dates because they're easy, a short-hand to compare players. Because its fun and I enjoy it. I do not take it to be gospel truth or some absolute system that explains everything. Exceptions are the norm. So yes, Ferrer was a late bloomer, but he's eight months younger than Roger, so forgive me if it makes more sense to group him in with Roger's generation. Again, a "generation" is related to age, not era. When people use the word "generation," they are speaking of an age range (e.g. Boomer Generation). This doesn't mean that everyone born within a given generation identifies with the general trends of that generation, or can easily be encapsulated within that generation.

I'm not trying to shoot holes in your list, just provide some nuance. Try not to be so thin-skinned, and use other people's fannishness as a reason for trying to parse out a list of ages. We've agreed that "generations" and eras can't be perfectly circumscribed.

Moxie, again, "generations" are flexible - the way I use them is as a scaffolding and not meant to be taken as absolute. That's the whole point of abstract systems: they give you guidelines, frameworks, but people err when they either hold too rigidly to them (which you think I'm doing, but I'm not), or on the side of seeing their potential rigidity and thus invalidating them (which you seem to be doing, I think).

To respond to your questions, in the shorthand I like to use, where generations are roughly five-year cohorts of players, no, I'd say that Zverev and Sinner are different generations, if only because they're far enough apart in age (four years) to make the context in which they started playing rather different. And of course, Zverev has been at a ranking and level for several yars that Sinner hasn't quite reached yet (although is on the cusp of, I'd say).

But again, and I might have to keep on saying this: Generations aren't absolute truths. They aren't rigid; they're scaffolding or lenses of perception, like tinted glasses that you can take on and off. You can make them any age-range you want, and divide them up in any way that you like. The reason I use five years is that seems a good average for how long it takes for players to move through a major developmental phase. From 17-21, a player goes from being semi-pro to prime; 22-26 is the median age for a player's prime; and 27-31 is the decline/plateau phase. As a general rule, two players five years apart are in a different developmental phase. But...

EVERY PLAYER IS DIFFERENT and EVERY ERA HAS DIFFERENT NORMS. Tennis players aren't robots or simulations. Each has their own story, their unique developmental arc, that varies from the "era norm" by different degrees. Similarly with eras. For instance, players now seem to be reaching their prime a bit later than in the past, more in the 22-25 range, and extending it into their early 30s. Or to put it another way, 25 may be the new 22 - the age when players usually ripen into their full powers (or thereabouts) and 32 may be the new 28, the age when they start showing signs of wear.

Again, every player, generation, and era is different. As you know, I think, in the pro/amateur era, (1920s to late 60s), players would often around deep into their 40s. I think some guys played into their 50s, earlier on. Bill Tilden won the US Pro Slam at age 42 and was playing that tournament into his 50s. Ken Rosewall was still on tour in his early 40s, and still very good in his late 30s back in the early 1970s. This all started to change in the mid-70s, when the game change and became younger. I think the "youth movement" peaked in the 80s and 90s, but continued into the 00s, when you had guys like Rios and Kuerten and Safin basically done as elite players by their late 20s, if not earlier (sometimes due to injury).

This is changing again - not just with Roger, Rafa, and Novak, but other members of their generations, although far less so than those three. I find this interesting, although it may mostly be because of how great they are. But we've also seen guys like Isner and Fognini win their first Masters in their 30s.

To some extent, all the variances makes such terms and frameworks relatively meaningless, or at least overly simplistic. But only if they're mean to be taken as either true or false, rather than how I use them: as a lens of perception (the tinted glasses analogy). Again, they're just frameworks that I use to talk about tennis, and to understand its history.


Sure. But it really depends upon what you mean by "generation." Roger is also part of the generation who came of age when Pete Sampras was still hanging around, when guys like Kuerten and Moya and Rios were at or near the top of their games, and when Agassi was having his late (second?) peak. That was the context Roger grew up in, and his generation took over the mantle and dominated in the 2000-04 years when they were in their early 20s, a time when Rafa was not yet in his prime, and only showing up in the last couple years of that span.

Sorry, I was re-reading Don Quixote during this bit. (@Jelenafan )

You do make a good argument for why Roger is part of that generation. But he has spanned 2-3 now, as have Rafa and Novak. As we've said...hard to define, if you're going to put players only 4 years apart in different generations, but I get that, too. Maybe we'll understand these young generations more, when they play out a bit. I do appreciate the attempt, however it sometimes tilts at windmills.

As you know, Rafa's first ATP level tournament was Mallorca in April of 2002, but he didn't really join the tour until a year later at Monte Carlo, playing 11 tournaments that year. So 2004 was actually his first full season, which is also the year he won his first title at Sopot, in August of 2004. He finished that year at #48.

Actually, I did not know the bolded above, and I'm impressed you've been able to find that out.

So in 2003, Rafa's first half-year, the top players were a mix of Roger's peers, with Hewitt #1, Safin #3, Ferrero #4, Roger #6, and Roddick #10, intermixed with guys from the previous age cohort (Kuerten, Moya, Costa, Novak), and old Mr Agassi. Some of Roger's peers had been in the top 10 or 20 for two or three years already. Roger himself, who was actually slightly on the side of late-blooming for that time, reached the top 20 in early 2001 and the top 10 in mid-2002, about three years before Rafa. Meaning, Roger was a tad late-blooming, and Rafa very early-blooming, so their prime years overlap more than usual for players of their age difference. Novak was also a bit earlier to bloom, but didn't reach the top 20 until late in 2006 and the top 10 until early-2007, a year that still saw Roger's generation dominating the rankings, with only Rafa (#2) and Mario Ancic (#10) finishing the year in the top 10, among players born 1984 or later. By the time Rafa reached #1 and Novak won his first Slam, both in 2008, most of Roger's better peers were in decline.

So while there are fluctuations and players are different, there are general age-related groupings that travel together to a large extent, in "generational packs" or cohorts.

I mention this in such conversations, because Roger is the lone survivor of his generational cohort, at least among the top 10. Roger finished 2020 at #5; the next highest ranked player who was born in 1983 or earlier was Feliciano Lopez (born the same year as Roger) at #64. To find another born 1979-83 (+/-- 2 years from Roger's 1981) finishing in the top 20, you have to go all the way back to 2016, when good old Dr Ivo finished at #20 at age 37 (he was born in 1979, two years before Roger). To find a second one in the top 10, would be David Ferrer at #7 in 2015; to find someone other than Roger in the year-end top 5, you have to go all the way back to 2013, when Ferrer finished #3.

Another interesting bit: here are the Slam winners from Roger's cohort (1979-83): Roger 20, Safin and Hewitt 2 each, Ferrero and Roddick 1 each. To find any of these guys--all of whom reached #1 and won a Slam before Roger, except for Roddick, who reached #1 before Roger, but won his first Slam, the 2003 US Open, after Roger's first at Wimbledon that year--in the YE top 10, you have to go back to 2010, when Roddick finished #8; to find any in the top 5, you have to go all the way back to 2005, when Roddick and Hewitt were still there.

What does any of this mean? Beats me. But it is interesting. Roger is outlasting his age cohort in a rather astonishing way, and it seems that Rafa and Novak are doing the same. Of their age cohort (let's say 1984-88), the last guy in the top 5 was del Potro in 2018. Murray and Wawrinka were in the top 5 in 2016. Meaning, their cohort has faded as well - and as has even the next generation, the guys born in 1989-93, with the exception of Thiem, who may be better considered "The First Next Genner." A large part of that is obviously because it was/is a very weak group, with only Dimitrov, Raonic, and Nishikori (twice) every finishing in the top 5.

And yes, I think a good part of this anomaly--the longevity of the Holy Trinity--is because they're all just so damn good. Roger was so much better than his peers, and Rafa and Novak are also so much better than their peers. Roger's peers faded quicker, though, while some of Novak and Rafa's peers hung around for a bit (and a few are still around, although almost all have faded).

I find all of this stuff interesting, a fun way to look at tennis trends and history. Despite what you think, I do not use it as a way to rigidly define players or generations. It is a lens, a modality, and yields interesting things to think and talk about.

What it is not is a way for me to try to put Roger in a shinier light. He can do that all on his own. I think your unfortunate tendency to misunderstand me is partially--if not totally--due to your nature as a Rafa Warrior, where you're seemingly always looking for signs of "Rafa offense," and unfortunately sometimes seeing it when it isn't there, at least in my case (I know there are some who are always going after him).

Hey, you do you - but please try to understand where I'm coming from, and more so, where I'm not coming from.

All of that is good research, and well-laid out. And I'm with you...what does it mean? If you read @tented's post, it means getting a later start and keeping your powder dry until the best of your competition fades. Too partizan? Or kinda true?

Love you like a brother and yes, I find this parsing out of details to be fun. Since you like the details, I thought you would, too.

 

[El Dude]

Not much to add, @Moxie, except to agree, again, that the three are rewriting tennis history. I think the reason they're all lasting so long is mostly because they have farther to fall, so even their 30s are better than most other players' 20s; also, they're very rich men with a lot of resources, and can afford incredible training regimes. Not many players can afford to go to space with Swami Goatananda and drink the milk of virginal space cows like Novak can.

But here's another tidbit: 15-year old Rafa's first opponent was 21-year old Olivier Rochus, who he lost to 6-2 6-2 at Mallorca. Some folks might remember Rochus, who retired in 2013 and had a career high ranking of #24 in 2005, winning two ATP 250s during his career. Gaston Gaudio went on to win that tournament, beating Pioline, Kuerten (including a bagel in the second set), Calleri, and Nieminen. That was the year Kuerten started to slip, after sustaining some injuries in late 2001, which led to him losing the YE #1 to Hewitt. After winning two Roland Garros in a row and three of the last five (1997, 2000-01), he lost to eventual winner Albert Costa in the 4th round.

 

[Fiero425]

Not much to add, @Moxie, except to agree, again, that the three are rewriting tennis history. I think the reason they're all lasting so long is mostly because they have farther to fall, so even their 30s are better than most other players' 20s; also, they're very rich men with a lot of resources, and can afford incredible training regimes. Not many players can afford to go to space with Swami Goatananda and drink the milk of virginal space cows like Novak can.

But here's another tidbit: 15-year old Rafa's first opponent was 21-year old Olivier Rochus, who he lost to 6-2 6-2 at Mallorca. Some folks might remember Rochus, who retired in 2013 and had a career high ranking of #24 in 2005, winning two ATP 250s during his career. Gaston Gaudio went on to win that tournament, beating Pioline, Kuerten (including a bagel in the second set), Calleri, and Nieminen. That was the year Kuerten started to slip, after sustaining some injuries in late 2001, which led to him losing the YE #1 to Hewitt. After winning two Roland Garros in a row and three of the last five (1997, 2000-01), he lost to eventual winner Albert Costa in the 4th round.

All I can remember about Rochus is that he had a brother, if not a twin who were both "short," but played tough! He goes way back to early Fed!

 

[Moxie]

Not much to add, @Moxie, except to agree, again, that the three are rewriting tennis history. I think the reason they're all lasting so long is mostly because they have farther to fall, so even their 30s are better than most other players' 20s; also, they're very rich men with a lot of resources, and can afford incredible training regimes. Not many players can afford to go to space with Swami Goatananda and drink the milk of virginal space cows like Novak can.

No amount of googling gets me to Swarmi Goatananda. Or virginal space cows. I'm sure there's a joke in there.

I agree that the Big 3 can pay for top level training regimes. But I think we both agree that that's not the only reason they rose to the top or stay there, (though for sure the money and the people that treat their bodies like F1 Ferraris does help.)

But here's another tidbit: 15-year old Rafa's first opponent was 21-year old Olivier Rochus, who he lost to 6-2 6-2 at Mallorca. Some folks might remember Rochus, who retired in 2013 and had a career high ranking of #24 in 2005, winning two ATP 250s during his career. Gaston Gaudio went on to win that tournament, beating Pioline, Kuerten (including a bagel in the second set), Calleri, and Nieminen. That was the year Kuerten started to slip, after sustaining some injuries in late 2001, which led to him losing the YE #1 to Hewitt. After winning two Roland Garros in a row and three of the last five (1997, 2000-01), he lost to eventual winner Albert Costa in the 4th round.

I get your point of going down this long chain of retired players, (and I would love if you could link me to that.) I will say, though, that you accidentally stepped in it again, because one of @tented's other favorite players was Olivier Rochas. Gaudio actually held the distinction, for many years, of being the only person to have beaten Rafa 3 times on clay. And it was Kuerten, on his one good hip, who probably blew Roger's chances of winning RG in 2004, before it became a crucible for him. Interesting line-up, for sure. 2003? was ages ago, I agree.

 

[tented]

But here's another tidbit: 15-year old Rafa's first opponent was 21-year old Olivier Rochus, who he lost to 6-2 6-2 at Mallorca. Some folks might remember Rochus, who retired in 2013 and had a career high ranking of #24 in 2005, winning two ATP 250s during his career.

 

[El Dude]

No amount of googling gets me to Swarmi Goatananda. Or virginal space cows. I'm sure there's a joke in there.

I agree that the Big 3 can pay for top level training regimes. But I think we both agree that that's not the only reason they rose to the top or stay there, (though for sure the money and the people that treat their bodies like F1 Ferraris does help.)

I get your point of going down this long chain of retired players, (and I would love if you could link me to that.) I will say, though, that you accidentally stepped in it again, because one of @tented's other favorite players was Olivier Rochas. Gaudio actually held the distinction, for many years, of being the only person to have beaten Rafa 3 times on clay. And it was Kuerten, on his one good hip, who probably blew Roger's chances of winning RG in 2004, before it became a crucible for him. Interesting line-up, for sure. 2003? was ages ago, I agree.

Here's the tournament: https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/tournamentEvent?tournamentEventId=3027

You can see all of Rafa's tournaments if you click on his player page on Ultimate Tennis Statistics, then click on "Events."

 

[britbox]

View attachment 5077
View attachment 5078

I think Rochus real claim to fame is being your Avatar.

 

[Moxie]

I think Rochus real claim to fame is being your Avatar.

Indeed. Rochus should be proud of that.

 

[shawnbm]

If you have the time to read....


The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 824 pages

Middlemarch , by George Elliot, 880 pages

Bleakhouse, by Charles Dickens, 960 pages

Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes 976 pages

The Stand (1990) by Stephen King, 1. 152 pages

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, by Tolkein 1, 178 pages

War and Peace, by Leo Tolstoy 1,296 pages

The Power Broker, by Robert Caro 1, 336 pages

A Suitable Boy, by Vikram Seth 1,349 pages

In Search of Lost Times (7 novels) Marcel Proust , 4,215 pages



THE FEDALOVIC war/threads , by multiple writers, 25,399 pages and counting……

Need to throw a little Michener in there. He has thousand page tomes too.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

 

[Fiero425]

I suppose this is one way to stay on top even if in an alternative reality!

 

[tennisville]

But it is all about the numbers

Didn't Rolex have so many commercials when Federer beat Roddick in 2009, why were numbers not important then?

If you are saying a person is my GOAT despite the numbers, then he is not your GOAT he is just your favorite player lol

 

[monfed]

Good to see you back here. Was wondering the other day where you've been.

Thanks buddy, missed you too. Don't see too many Fed fans here. I quit tennis after Fed lost Wim 19 F. It was a bit too much to take for me. Felt like Fed died there. Hope you're over that loss too mate.

 

[monfed]

But it is all about the numbers

Didn't Rolex have so many commercials when Federer beat Roddick in 2009, why were numbers not important then?

If you are saying a person is my GOAT despite the numbers, then he is not your GOAT he is just your favorite player lol

GOAT is not some apple picking contest, the one with the most apples wins. If it was like that then Laver wouldn't STILL be relevant, his slam count his lower than Fed's, lower than Pete's too. He's considered greater than Pete even though Pete has more slams than Laver.

Federer has been the face of tennis since 2003 till atleast Wim 2019, arguably even till this Wimbledon. That's almost 2 decades he was the face of tennis even with Djokovic and Nadal specially the former taking over from 2011. That's incredible and that shows that he transcends tennis.

Federer plays a brand of tennis that has never been seen before and I'm quite confident will never be seen again. He's a once in a lifetime player. And in a rare instance, his stats back up that claim. 20 slams is 6 more than Pete. It's more than enough to be the GOAT. But little did Fed know that the generation after 1987 would be so shit. Neither Nadull nor fakervic have an ATG challenger whereas Fed had not one but two ultra mentally tough grinders. This is why Faker even though he was third wheel from 2012 to 2014, that's 3 years AFTER hitting your peak, is why he's not getting credit for his post 2015 wins.

Federer plays POSITIVE tennis to win matches. He doesn't keeping pushing and pushing till the opponent implodes. That is by definition negative tennis

Look at any sport. The GOATs are flair players and players who create opportunities. Take football for example - Lev Yashin is the greatest goalkeeper in the world, Paolo Maldini is the greatest defender of all time and yet they're not considered GOATs. It's always been between Pele and Maradona and now recently Messi. All three are attackers.

But Djokovic should get a free pass because what? He's scavenging slams left and right when this useless gen can't hold at 5-4 even when they played the better tennis the entire set? Cmon.

Fakervic stats after 2015 count but they're not impressive. Even if you want to say those stats are impressive, Fine. But his stats after he returned from cuckoo land in 2018 are not impressive AT ALL.

 

[tennisville]

GOAT is not some apple picking contest, the one with the most apples wins. If it was like that then Laver wouldn't STILL be relevant, his slam count his lower than Fed's, lower than Pete's too. He's considered greater than Pete even though Pete has more slams than Laver.

Federer has been the face of tennis since 2003 till atleast Wim 2019, arguably even till this Wimbledon. That's almost 2 decades he was the face of tennis even with Djokovic and Nadal specially the former taking over from 2011. That's incredible and that shows that he transcends tennis.

Federer plays a brand of tennis that has never been seen before and I'm quite confident will never be seen again. He's a once in a lifetime player. And in a rare instance, his stats back up that claim. 20 slams is 6 more than Pete. It's more than enough to be the GOAT. But little did Fed know that the generation after 1987 would be so shit. Neither Nadull nor fakervic have an ATG challenger whereas Fed had not one but two ultra mentally tough grinders. This is why Faker even though he was third wheel from 2012 to 2014, that's 3 years AFTER hitting your peak, is why he's not getting credit for his post 2015 wins.

Federer plays POSITIVE tennis to win matches. He doesn't keeping pushing and pushing till the opponent implodes. That is by definition negative tennis

Look at any sport. The GOATs are flair players and players who create opportunities. Take football for example - Lev Yashin is the greatest goalkeeper in the world, Paolo Maldini is the greatest defender of all time and yet they're not considered GOATs. It's always been between Pele and Maradona and now recently Messi. All three are attackers.

But Djokovic should get a free pass because what? He's scavenging slams left and right when this useless gen can't hold at 5-4 even when they played the better tennis the entire set? Cmon.

Fakervic stats after 2015 count but they're not impressive. Even if you want to say those stats are impressive, Fine. But his stats after he returned from cuckoo land in 2018 are not impressive AT ALL.

I dont know why you should resort to disrespectful names like Fakervic

GOAT has always been about numbers, flair is just up to taste and is extremely subjective. For me, the most beautiful tennis I have ever seen comes from the racquet of Fabrice Santaro but I am not going to call him GOAT because of that. Why, because he does not have the numbers at his side. I also love watching highlights of Edberg's matches on Youtube. I wasn't born then but I just love how he volleyed

Sampras also was considered GOAT but isn't anymore, that happens. I personally don't believe in the concept of GOAT as you cannot compare Laver's time to now. But I do believe you can compare the last 15 years and Novak Djokovic has been the best player in that time frame

 

[monfed]

I dont know why you should resort to disrespectful names like Fakervic

GOAT has always been about numbers, flair is just up to taste and is extremely subjective. For me, the most beautiful tennis I have ever seen comes from the racquet of Fabrice Santaro but I am not going to call him GOAT because of that. Why, because he does not have the numbers at his side. I also love watching highlights of Edberg's matches on Youtube. I wasn't born then but I just love how he volleyed

Sampras also was considered GOAT but isn't anymore, that happens. I personally don't believe in the concept of GOAT as you cannot compare Laver's time to now. But I do believe you can compare the last 15 years and Novak Djokovic has been the best player in that time frame

Uncle Bob next door finds Mecir the most appealing. So? Majority find Federer's game the most appealing and you'll have to learn to deal with it.

The main point is that Roger Federer combines both popularity and success along with playing positive tennis. Faker plays negative pusher tennis which is disgusting to watch and his universally disliked and more hated than even Nadal let alone Federer.

Now if you REALLY want to go into numbers ONLY and strawman the entire GOAT debate as it clearly suits your agenda, faker's stats are inflated. He has had NO ATG challenger to beat him when he plays utter shit tennis like he did against Shapovalov and against Fritz at AO, Musetti and RG and on and on it goes in every bloody slam. So even your "only numbers" matter spiel can be EASILY debunked!

Tennis Channel had Laver at #2 and Fed at #1. Why would they rank him ahead of Pete if only numbers matter? Surely tennis channel knows more than you?

 

[monfed]

Gentle reminder to mouth breathing fakertards who have no respect for the game and legends - NO ATG born after 1987 to challenge him unlike Fed who had not one but TWO ATGs faker and dull showing up in the final of every bloody slam. SO, faker's numbers are inflated. Yup they are.

Can you imagine a 34 YO is a lock for the bloody CYGS? What a bloody farce.